Abstract
AbstractSince 2007, income support recipients in the Northern Territory (NT) have been subjected to compulsory income management (CIM), a form of welfare conditionality which continues, despite the withdrawal of CIM from other locations in Australia and research that identifies negligible benefits. Implemented with the goal of improving social well‐being and health outcomes, CIM quarantines a proportion of income support payments which cannot be used to purchase alcohol, gambling, pornography and in some cases tobacco, to direct payments to priority needs of recipients and encourage socially responsible behaviour. This article presents the perspectives of welfare sector stakeholders in the NT on the ongoing impact of CIM on income support recipients and their communities. It draws on semi‐structured interviews with 26 participants with expertise across non‐government service delivery, government, legal and advocacy sectors. The findings detail that CIM is considered ineffective in reducing social harms such as substance misuse, can contribute to situations of family violence, and exacerbates challenges for recipients living in regional and remote areas. It also highlights the poor compatibility of community income management in regional and remote contexts, its top‐down design, and views that CIM is a form of social control and disempowerment.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
