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

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Australian Journal of Public Administration Pub Date : 2022-08-17 DOI:10.1111/1467-8500.12558
Philip Mendes, Steven Roche, Lisa Conway, Lani Castan
{"title":"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","authors":"Philip Mendes,&nbsp;Steven Roche,&nbsp;Lisa Conway,&nbsp;Lani Castan","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The former Coalition Commonwealth Government consistently asserted that representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter Indigenous) organisations supported the introduction of the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) in multiple trial sites. Consequently, they depicted the CDC policy as an alleged exemplar of a co-designed policy model based on partnership with Indigenous community groups. This article examines the validity of this argument by analysing the views expressed by Indigenous organisations via written and oral submissions to the six parliamentary inquiries into the CDC from 2015 to 2020. Our findings suggest that with the exception of the first inquiry, most Indigenous submissions opposed the introduction or the expansion of the CDC. Yet, these critical views received only limited acknowledgement in the inquiry reports, and seem to have little or no impact on government policy concerning the CDC. It appears that the CDC policy is more accurately identified as a top-down policy imposed by government on local Aboriginal communities which, with some exceptions, neither requested nor consented to the policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"82 2","pages":"167-193"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8500.12558","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12558","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The former Coalition Commonwealth Government consistently asserted that representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter Indigenous) organisations supported the introduction of the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) in multiple trial sites. Consequently, they depicted the CDC policy as an alleged exemplar of a co-designed policy model based on partnership with Indigenous community groups. This article examines the validity of this argument by analysing the views expressed by Indigenous organisations via written and oral submissions to the six parliamentary inquiries into the CDC from 2015 to 2020. Our findings suggest that with the exception of the first inquiry, most Indigenous submissions opposed the introduction or the expansion of the CDC. Yet, these critical views received only limited acknowledgement in the inquiry reports, and seem to have little or no impact on government policy concerning the CDC. It appears that the CDC policy is more accurately identified as a top-down policy imposed by government on local Aboriginal communities which, with some exceptions, neither requested nor consented to the policy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
共同设计还是自上而下的福利条件?对原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民向六项议会调查提交的无现金借记卡的影响的分析
前联合联邦政府一直声称,具有代表性的土著和托雷斯海峡岛民(以下简称土著)组织支持在多个试验点引入无现金借记卡(CDC)。因此,他们将疾病预防控制中心的政策描述为与土著社区团体建立伙伴关系的共同设计的政策模式的所谓范例。本文通过分析土著组织在2015年至2020年期间通过书面和口头提交给议会对CDC的六次调查所表达的观点,来检验这一论点的有效性。我们的调查结果表明,除了第一次调查外,大多数土著意见书反对引入或扩大疾病预防控制中心。然而,这些批评意见在调查报告中只得到有限的承认,似乎对政府有关疾病预防控制中心的政策几乎没有影响。似乎CDC的政策更准确地说是政府强加给当地土著社区的自上而下的政策,除了一些例外,土著社区既没有要求也没有同意这项政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information - TOC Issue Information - TOC Knowledge brokering for public sector reform ‘We're trying to get out of here, that's what we're doing’: A Bourdieusian examination of ‘choice’ in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Knowing what not to know: Unravelling the dynamics of selective knowledge in government policymaking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1