Analyzing the Impact of Australian Income Management Policies

The assignment requires students to analyze the Australian government's public policies focusing on NRM and the Cashless Welfare Card. It involves evaluating how these policies address environmental and economic issues, considering their structure and societal inclusivity. Students will dra...Read More

Running head: PUBLIC POLICIES 1
Public Policies
Name
Institution

PUBLIC POLICIES 2
Public policy is the process through which the government ensures order in implementing
the needs of its people as stipulated in the constitution (Dror, 2017). It is a collation of rules and
regulations as well as obligations developed through a political procedure. For instance in United
States of America, of late, there has been a healthcare bill that requires the citizens to have health
care insurance. After numerous consultations and examination the federal government has
summarized that that is the best route to take as far as the concerns of the citizens are concerned
therefore embarking on drafting the bills and making of legislations to develop systems for the
citizens to obtain health attention. Public policy is divided into various types as it regards the
society e.g. health policy and legal policy (Vedung, 2017).
This essay is going to focus on the efficiency of public policy bearing two cases, that is,
negative case analysis and positive case analysis. The analysis is as herein discussed below;
Firstly, the government of Australia has numerous policies for environmental
sustainability to curtail impact on the environment. The issues entailed in the environmental
management policy include; use of energy, emission green gas, office and building wastes and
waste water.
In the recent past, the government of Australia partnering with other states governments
has taken on determined investigation in Natural Resource Management policy with the aim of
establishing agendas that can use public funds to the best impact thereby achieving positive
NRM results. In the year 2013, billions of public money was spent by the government of
Australia to address the concerns of countrywide NRM. The spending of billions on the NRM
the government has been internationally recognized as high level spending thereby attracting
praises for an achievement as well as strong criticism for such a failure (Whetton, Ekström,
Gerbing, Grose, Bhend, Webb & Risbey, 2015).
Therefore, there is great need to justify the efficiency and the rationale of this policy as
regards its capacity building and a more sustaining wider funding through influencing investment
support from the community, private investors and the non-governmental organizations. The
rolling out of this policy has seen many Australians change their expectations toward agriculture
that has socio-economic and environmental responsibility.

PUBLIC POLICIES 3
The Australian Strategy for Conservation policy was as a response to the natural resource
management. The program has influenced and changed the community beliefs on agriculture
(Boulton, Brock, Robson, Ryder, Chambers & Davis, 2014). The NRM was reflected the basic
change in expectation of the society that has environmental a d economic responsibility. There
are political and social forces underlying the changes thereby reducing importance attached to
agriculture in the economy of Australia contrary to knowledge that agriculture forms about sixty
percent of the total land resource in Australia. Some serious views have been advanced to
question the contractedness of this natural resource management program by the Australian
government. The NRM has reshaped the natural environment from the concept of integrated
ecosystem to that of utility concept with petty issues of soil salinity and erosion thereby raising
questions on the impacts of underestimating the natural assets in regard to homegrown health and
wellbeing in Australia (Schmoldt, Kanga, Mendoza & Pesonen, 2013).
Overly, the substantial attention has been paid on the government’s plans to shape the
NRM program and its legitimacy thereof. Billion dollars from the public coffers have been used
to that effect with a number of questions regarding its roles, responsibilities and accountability
across ranks and authorities remaining unresolved. Also despite acceptance and roll out of the
NRM program some serious allegations have meted against the importance of the natural
resource management program on its ability to enhance community empowerment, decision
making pegged on democracy and conflict resolution (Tietenberg & Lewis, 2016).
Different views have been highlighted on the efficiency and effectiveness of the NRM
policy with the following issues standing out clearly; power, responsibility and role- the roles
and powers regarding the spending of public funds to deliver the NRM program through
devolution. The details concerning the planning process of marking out the goals and objectives
of the program, information for communication, implementation strategies and accountability
measures have been widely protested. For instance suspicion on the function of devolved
governments in setting priorities for NRM and supporting ability in terms of incentives by the
government have not been understood. Accounting and investment mechanisms by the
government have found wanting. NRM planning process. Particular issues have been pointed
out concerning the planning process so that NRM plans are made with informed science as well
as socio-economic data, planning within the boundaries of environmental challenges by

PUBLIC POLICIES 4
identification of overt resources. Collaboration and coordination. This is another reason that
has been advanced to ensure improved cooperation among various governments and
communities in the planning process including establishing structures for cooperation that is all
inclusive for shareholders and interested communities. Finally, matters of capacity and
engagement of the community. The function of the community in decision making in the NRM
program is key and the capability of the regional administrations in bringing the community on
board is as well important. For instance managing the involvement of the community in an
indeterminate funding rotations (HC Coombs Policy Forum NRM Initiative, 2016).
Secondly, the case of Income Management policy in Australia is a good example to use.
In this scenario, the economic stability of the disadvantaged members of the society is catered for
by the scheme. Economically, these people are empowered in in one way or another since their
expenditure on income is greatly controlled by the Cashless Card to their advantage, an income
that would have otherwise been squandered in drugs, pornography and gambling. The
government finds it easy to ensure that the children are protected and enrolled in school. Issues
of financial harassment among the people on whom compulsory BasicCard has been imposed
has also reduced a great deal. This policy is efficient and has positive outcomes as far as reason
for which it was made is concerned. It has assured child protection and reduction in social issues
like drunkardness and irresponsibility that possibly hurt the economy of the indigenous
individuals and by extension the Australian economy (Lee, 2015).
In government’s view income management is instrumental in assisting the disengaged youths,
long-lasting welfare program recipients and the vulnerable members of the society, and is
targeted toward enhancing commitment, involvement and accountability. Through this the
government is determined to progressively improve the welfare scheme so as to enhance
individual responsibility and enable them to move upwards economically and out of welfare
program reliance. Therefore, through this food, clothing, housing, health care and home utilities
assured.
Income Management is a situation whereby rules and regulations are put in place to limit
the expenditure of particular set of people from their income payments. Certain amount is set
aside to meet costs of basic human needs like housing, health care, food and education. The
forceful introduction of Income Management was done by the government of Howard in the year

PUBLIC POLICIES 5
2007 as an emergency response. During this time, schemes for income management were
established to assist in circumstances of parents abandoning children and also when the children
from such families were not enrolled in school. Provisions were also made for other people who
wanted voluntary management of their funds from income.
Management of income has greatly reformed the welfare structure of the Australian
people. Conditions for being in the welfare has been established with the restrictions as regards
the expenditure from the payments. A right has been given for full payment to any qualifying
government of Commonwealth and thus means that the recipients are allowed to spend from the
payment as the may deem fit. In certain occasions the government would give assistance in form
of physical materials rather than cash. Nevertheless, this has been criticized by researchers of
Social Policy like Ronald Mendelsohn recounting it as an intrusion into the people’s (the
recipients’) privacy (Maxwell, 2015.).
The commencement of income management by the government of Howard were among
the first reforms to change the behavior of the welfare beneficiaries to help change the attitude
toward the social disadvantages by forcing sanctions to the welfare so as to modify the
recipients’ social customs and behavior. The policy of income management has been
argumentative and argued upon by the adherents of the public while its canons have not been
understood by the indigenous people of Australia and the leaders thereof( Parliament of
Australia,2013).
The income management policy was advanced by the federation government of Howard
as a reaction to emergency for some particular areas of the Northern Territory all-encompassing
more than 72 remote societies and the associated outskirts. These areas were well-defined by
alcohol, drug abuse and child neglect as well as other forms of public irresponsibility. So the
government had to answer back and rescue the horrid state of those communities.
Recommendations were, therefore, made to ensure that at least half an individual’s
earning was to be made in form of foodstuff vouchers. This was widely alleged that it could
imperatively impact on prohibited drug abuse and alcohol use. On the same breath, payment in
form of foodstuff receipt was complained as it foreshadowed superfluous reliance from the
people. The forceful management of income was to be imposed on those who had eerie manners
in the society. Therefore, to renovate the societal norms, regulations must lean on the values of

PUBLIC POLICIES 6
the community by coupling welfare incomes to the members of the society and in the children’s
interest as a composition of the community (Bolton, Brock, Robson, Ryder, Chambers & Davis,
2014).
The government then hosted an act that would reduce the pay by half by separating the
Australian government income payments with the across-the-board objective of curtailing cash
spent on drug abuse and those that are set aside for the sake of children and are actually spent for
that purpose (Agrawal, 2014). This is so because it was viewed that a child under the care of a
person who is not registered in welfare payment program would risk neglect and fail to go school
(Bielefeld, 2014).
The measures have been supported by some people who view it as important in helping
those who are disadvantaged socially while some other people disapprove the procedures on the
grounds that it is simply focused on the indigenous group, pillorying them and denying the right
to self-determination of how to spend their money. Therefore, this policy have had positive
impact on the indigenous Australian people regarding its strengths (Dee, 2013).
In conclusion, public policy as a collation of rules and regulations used to man a
particular society, it is frequently rocked by controversies and relentlessly debated upon by
people it is used to man. According to each person’s view, public policy may appear to be unfair
and arbitrary in its operations. Among the marginal groups in the society, it is always common
for the individuals to contest public policies that they feel are stringent on them or ostracize them
in one way or another. For instance, public policies touching reproductive rights of females,
equality or marriage have always been criticized simply because it has been accepted as true that
it does not embody all the people or give advantage to some group over another. Since public
policies are brought to play so as to meet or unravel the societal needs, they are therefore, not
grilled on stone but are liable to change depending on the societal changes or needs (DiNitto &
Johnson, 2015). In light of all the challenges and remonstrations faced by public policy, they are
healthy to make a public policy live without the danger of being useless or even outdated. The
Natural Resource Management policy and the Income Management policy by the Australian
government are important public policies that can go a long way solving environmental and
economic challenges respectively. However, their efficiency and effectiveness depends on their
structures and how inclusive they are of the members of the society in which they operate.

PUBLIC POLICIES 7
References
Agrawal, A. (2014). Indigenous and scientific knowledge: some critical comments.
Anthropology Indonesia.
Bergstrom, J.C. and Randall, A., (2016). Resource economics: an economic approach to natural
resource and environmental policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bielefeld, S., (2014). Compulsory Income Management and Indigenous Peoples-Exploring
Counter Narratives amidst Colonial Constructions of Vulnerability. Sydney L. Rev., 36,
p.695.
Boulton, A., Brock, M., Robson, B., Ryder, D., Chambers, J. & Davis, J., (2014). Australian
freshwater ecology: processes and management. John Wiley & Sons.
Boulton, A., Brock, M., Robson, B., Ryder, D., Chambers, J. & Davis, J., (2014). 'We don't
support this cashless welfare card'. Guardian (Sydney), (1794), p.3.
Dee, M., (2013). Welfare surveillance, income management and new paternalism in Australia.
Surveillance & Society, 11(3), p.272.
DiNitto, D.M. & Johnson, D.H., (2015). Social welfare: Politics and public policy. Pearson.
Dror, Y., 2017. Public policy making reexamined. Routledge.
Forgione, P., (2016). Cashless welfare trial begins in Ceduna. Green Left Weekly, (1087), p.10.
HC Coombs Policy Forum NRM Initiative, 2016.
https://devpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/public_policy_community/research/nrm/NRM_Ref
_Gro up_Literature_review.pdf
Lee, T.J., (2015). Benefits and disadvantages of cashless gambling for recreational gamblers: A
case of Australia. 한한한한한한 한한한한한한한한한, 78(4), pp.405-405.
Madigan, M., (2017). Cashless cards and other salvos in the war on the poor. Eureka Street,
27(11), p.43.
Maxwell, R., (2015). Concern over welfare card. Guardian (Sydney), (1670), p.3.

PUBLIC POLICIES 8
Parliament of Australia,2013.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library /pubs/BN/2011-2012/IncomeManagementOverview
Schmoldt, D., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G.A. & Pesonen, M. eds., (2013). The analytic hierarchy
process in natural resource and environmental decision making (Vol. 3). Springer Science
& Business Media.
Sommer, M., Caruso, B.A., Sahin, M., Calderon, T., Cavill, S., Mahon, T. and Phillips-Howard,
P.A., (2016). A time for global action: addressing girls’ menstrual hygiene
management needs in schools. PLoS medicine, 13(2), p.e1001962.
Tietenberg, T.H. & Lewis, L., (2016). Environmental and natural resource economics.
Routledge.
Vedung, E., (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. Routledge.
Whetton, P., Ekström, M., Gerbing, C., Grose, M., Bhend, J., Webb, L. & Risbey, J., (2015).
Climate change in Australia. Information for Australia’s natural resource management
regions: technical report.