The legislation to change the basic social security system is attracting some very interesting tensions. The Government has nastily linked a range of legislation that has different constituencies and the conflicts are emerging. The Government has surpassed itself in political trickiness and manipulation by trying to play various groups against each other.

It started by appealing first to the (slightly) more conservative Opposition to vote for its paternalistic extension of bad welfare; it followed this by trying to get the Aboriginal communities and their supporters to support the plan as the Bills would reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act as including non-Aboriginal welfare recipients, meaning the legislation was not racist. Jenny Macklin’s office emailed and rang people to ask them to pressure the Greens to support the Government Bills.

To get the legislation through the senate, the ALP needs the Coalition, or the Greens and two independents. So far there is no indication of the views of Steven Fielding or Nick Xenophon, but the latter at least would be impressed by the solid opposition to the Bills in submissions so far to the Senate Inquiry.  By February 3, there were no submissions out of 35 supporting the Bills and usually cautious organisations such as ACOSS and Anglicare were clearly opposed.

The reasons for the widespread opposition are that there is no evidence that the measures in place in prescribed areas, particularly income management, have had any clear benefits. Data is, at best, inconclusive and, at worst, signals some damage to the goodwill and well being of many affected people. Despite this the government appears determined to only remove the suspension of the rights of the prescribed areas, if the rest of the legislation goes through.

So how is the political positioning playing out? Tony Abbot has indicated that he is unlikely to vote for the changes.  The Opposition leader on Tuesday February 9, accused the government of taking a “one step forward and one step backwards” approach.

“They are watering down welfare quarantining in the 73 affected communities of the Northern Territory but they are imposing limited welfare quarantining on the rest of the Territory,” Abbott said in The Australian. “What it looks to me at this stage is that as things stand the number of people actually subject to welfare quarantining in the Northern Territory is going to drop quite significantly and I’m not sure that’s a good thing. It’s been one of the really important aspects of the intervention and I’d be very disappointed to see it watered down in any way.”

Even the bait of persecuting more non-indigenous welfare recipients was not enough to sway his views. He wants to retain the racially discriminatory aspects rather than ensure other welfare recipients would have half of their payments controlled by Centrelink. However, Kevin Andrews said the Opposition would support a national system of welfare quarantining.

“If you want to go down the track of having a national system, split the Bills and then we can deal with the groups who are vulnerable we put this in place for,” he said. So Macklin is not likely to get their support as she can’t split the Bills as without the re-instatement of RDA, her other Bills are more obviously obnoxious.

The next unfolding bit of the drama is the NT Aboriginal-controlled medical services (AMSANT) have been swayed by the Macklin camp. They are in Canberra lobbying the Greens and others to pass the set of Bills  because of reinstating the RDA. Their rationale is obviously based on restoring rights to the 16,000 current recipients of income management and the rest of their prescribed communities. They know how the  40,000-plus people affected feel and their statement says:

“The reform legislation is not perfect, but the evidence on the links between health and human rights is clear,” said AMSANT chair Stephanie Bell. “Failure to restore the Racial Discrimination Act [RDA] means double jeopardy for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory: it will mean our rights under the RDA will be held to ransom indefinitely.

“It is a stark choice for our political leaders. Support the human rights of Aboriginal Territorians through the restoration of the RDA now. Then engage with differences we might have with other elements of the legislation down the track.

“It’s that or live with the knowledge that Aboriginal people in the Territory will continue to be deprived of those rights indefinitely. What we are saying is pass this Bill, allow Aboriginal Territorians to be treated equitably.”

This view is understandable but too limited. The Greens remain adamant that the legislation should be defeated because it is very bad. They have had overwhelming support from most Aboriginal groups, the welfare sector, feminist groups and legal people, so they occupy the ethical high ground. AMSANT and a few other groups in the NT that see income management as a lesser evil than lack of the RDA, are legitimately defending their people’s rights, but not being realistic about the wider politics. Extending the system puts the poor in the rest of Australia at risk, including many thousands more indigenous families and continues the limits on existing recipients.

Many indigenous people are legitimately angry that so few other people took on John Howard or Jenny Macklin when their programs targeted certain remote Aboriginal communities. Now that the change is likely to affect non-Aboriginal people, the NT people see more welfare and other groups objecting and are angry at the apparent racism. These welfare groups need to apologise for their earlier lack of criticism. However, their late conversion does not justify extending the current bad policies to many more welfare recipients, including a disproportionate number of other indigenous families.

The Government should withdraw the proposed legislation, pass the Greens Bill to reinstate the RDA and start a wider discussion on how to achieve real welfare reform.