Aboriginal Welfare Benefits

Well-being is a state of feeling of satisfaction comprising of health, relationships, safety and security, living conditions, social connections and achievements made in life. Also the intensity of components of well-being changes with individual, communities etc... In addition, social welfare as the word rooted ‘fare’ and ‘well’, the meaning implies that the conditions or set of provisions for assisting the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. However, the complicated welfare technologies implemented by governing bodies of Australia on aboriginal lives reflect the intermeshing of different unconvincing agendas of ‘privileged’ power. As behaviour as a marker of eligibility in welfare, the aborigines are/were committed to compliance

with particular standards of behaviour constructed by the dominant culture to maintain their position and power. This essay elaborates and critically discusses the thesis statement using various welfare provisions on indigenous people of Australia.
The self-governance of Aboriginal communities was not acknowledged in various government periods. The government introduced certain flawed measures to govern over them. The aim is to maintain the position of power and privilege of ‘white’. It was signalled by the Northern Territory Emergency Response and the subsequent stronger future legislation with claims that self-government of indigenous communities had failed (McAllum 2014, p.380). The ‘epidemic’ of sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities in which children and adults have been moralised through a risk lens within the spectres of vulnerability and dangerousness (Stanford & Taylor 2013, p.488). The introduced plan of NTER includes a range of measures to tackle alcohol abuse, improve school attendance, and reform public housing arrangements. For this plan, the government blend the welfare security payment and called it as compulsory income management (CIM). Around 50 – 70 percentage of income security payment is quarantining into a special account. The plan switched welfare payments into conditional one, and the payment is based on meeting the following obligations; that adults receiving family payments ensure that children maintain a 100 percent school attendance; that adults prevents any child abuse or neglect; that adults not be involved in substance abuse, gambling or family violence offences; that the community wash children’s face daily & regular rubbish collection and that adults adhere to conditions of tenancy in public housing (Mendes 2008). Moreover, Brough & Pearson, (cited in Mendes 2008, p.142) suggests that A Family Responsibilities Commission would be established to monitor breaches of the obligations and to determine the appropriate sanction which means the conditions of behavioural compliance have become pervasive, compelling and inescapable in order to receive welfare payment. However, the initiation of this flawed strategy did not expose positive outcomes despite having some false or irrelevant observations. These ‘tough love’ measures were being applied (blanket stereotyping) to all indigenous parents whether negligent or otherwise, that negative sanctions alone were unlikely to resolve deep-seated problems such as child abuse and neglect and substance abuse, and that applying restrictions to welfare payments on the basis of race might breach the Racial Discrimination Act (Mendes 2008, p.142) & Mendes 2013). The paternalistic conditions, without considering the level of personal responsibility, imposed have resulted in severe problems for them. For example, they are not permitted to purchase basic leisure items for their children even though showing 100 percent school attendance. SRA is patronising and coercive, racially discriminatory, reminiscent of past assimilationist policies based on government control and aboriginal subservience, and potentially undermine the basics citizenship entitlement of indigenous Australians and its negative outcomes affect their well-being (Mendes 2008). Hence, Compulsory Income Management, an initiative to demonstrate power and privilege of the dominant culture, seems to take the shift to conditional welfare even further by imposing an unprecedented restriction of individual wellbeing in the attempt to promote behavioural change (Mendes 2013).
Welfare services are calculated through the legal recognition of rights of residents.

The sustained focus upon assimilation of real natives that govern the conditions of entry of the welfare system includes eligibility criteria, compliance and non-compliance. The welfare conditions are developed and implemented by the dominant group from the logic of their standpoint to govern and maintain their embedded privilege over indigenous people and abolishing the ‘irrelevant’ culture (Stanford & Taylor 2013, p.488). The government implemented new assimilation policy in mid of the twentieth century to include Aboriginals as citizens of the land. In order to receive welfare benefits, they had to certify their rights backed by citizenship. The sweet-coated notion of welfare inclusion was required certain conditions to oblige. The hidden agenda of the concept was to end of indigenous identity which means a full spectrum of change from traditional Aboriginal culture to European culture (Murphy 2013). It has been determined the conditional inclusion to assimilation policy which gives attention to the eradication of colour(white prejudice) and assimilation through socio-cultural alteration and centring on the inculcation of Western norms and values rather than interacting between indigenous and non-indigenous cultural system. The concept means the biological language of blood and caste was shrunken and was overtaken by the socio-cultural language of behaviour and culture (Murphy 2013, p.209). The authority had developed classificatory regulations for eligibility for of the policy in getting welfare for the indigenous population. The eligibility criteria include the complete change of behaviour and compliance to certain behavioural patterns suggested by the dominant culture. The obligation are as follows; the requirements of living according to European standards, having personal and civic qualities of ‘character’ and ‘development’, possessing and being known by a ‘surname’, a

very basic level of literacy and numeracy, being in employment or available for employment, service with or has served with Defence force of the Commonwealth (Murphy 2013, p.222). Moreover, being a victim of forceful removal from the reserves is the requirement for unemployment and sickness certificate. More importantly, maternity allowance conditions includes child is not being nomadic and living under conditions reasonably comparable to Australian living standards and ‘maternal competence’ agreement of behaviour for the assimilation scrutiny process includes improvement of standard of living, learning of parents to exercise thrift and presentation of their children to the world as neatly clothed and well fed as any ‘white children’ (Murphy 2013, p.220). Hence, the shift from total exclusion to conditional inclusion in welfare was under the indecent ‘game-plan’ of destroying the valuable culture by uncompromising behaviour change to dominant values and culture.
The events including the systematic removal and institutionalisation of indigenous children from their families and communities could then be understood as war by obscene agenda. The cultural of ‘forgetting’ was implemented by the compliance of certain forceful assimilation of the behaviour of the dominant culture. The ‘neglected’ and illiteracy of aboriginal child as the object of governing and intervention- that is, to construct conditions of possibility for the removal of Aboriginal children from their families and communities and a history of the ‘stolen generation’ which is to instil the power and privilege of ‘whiteness’ (McAllum 2014). The welfare work naming ‘assimilation’ had been started from nineteenth century onwards under Aboriginal Protection Act, Aboriginals protection and restriction of the sale of opium act. The flawed assimilation of supporting Aboriginals by providing rudimentary housing, clothing and nutrition and more importantly education to Aboriginal children had been executed for clearing out the indigenous culture from the land. The displayed welfare was forcefully inducing aboriginal people to depart from their children for getting education and industrial training to the children various locations of Australia. However, the immoral notion of breaking up family relationship and attempt to break down cultural affiliations of indigenous Australia was implemented purposefully under the name of this ‘welfare’ (McAllum 2014). The missionaries established welfare stations in many parts of Australia and the religion was closely bound up with the morality with its emphasis on work, punctuality, cleanliness and chastity. The missionaries targeted onto educate them the ‘recognised standard of living’ and provide training on employment (a kind of slavery) and to strengthen Christian population. One committee is appointed to analyse the misconduct of children and if, after being threatened and repeatedly punished, they appear to be incorrigible and will be provided in their stead. Severe restrictions will be placed upon the children loitering on the road and playing at marbles or other games which are considered against the morality and required a standard of living (Reynolds 1996). Moreover, the family concept is different in Aboriginal and European culture and which is broader in former culture. The native people give more importance to family relationships and well-being. However, the cries and severity of separation and ‘abandonment’ of children & parents had been suppressed under the strict scrutiny of dominant ‘whitish’ behaviour (Reynolds 1996, p. 131). Thus, the ‘stolen generation’ of forceful removal of indigenous children from their parents in connection with flawed welfare measures was a deliberate attempt to abolish Aboriginal society by imposing European values and compliance on the behavioural expectation of dominant power on the children.
The interests of white privilege are served through the construction of the morality deficit identities of aboriginals are obfuscated, thereby maintaining the position of power and privilege of white in the society (Stanford & Taylor 2013). Finding ‘other’ ways of solution to the problems of Aboriginals, administer the natives to contingent upon subjected behaviour and destruction of prevalent culture. Also, unintelligence of ‘dominant’ governing people across different periods distorts indigenous behaviour. More clearly, Aboriginals protection and restriction of the sale of opium act in 1897 was imposed to promote ‘welfare’ to indigenous people and the aim to eradicate various socio-health problems affected at the century. However, this welfare act provided wide powers to the government to control the Aboriginal community thereby control their movement and settlement. The paternalistic and highly authoritarian legislation was used as a device for social engineering and control, essentially becoming the instrument with which Aboriginal people could be stripped of the most basic human rights and to ethnic cleansing. They removed aboriginals from their lands to isolated reserves and force to engage in industrial jobs and introduce wage-earning society. Regulations on welfare act had been framed to ensure strict control of female in employment, keen prosecution of maintenance cases, and removal to the settlement of women found to be promiscuous (Reynolds 1996). In addition, Govt controlled the wages and entitlement of aboriginals by appointing authority and a major share of wage was deposited in trust funds (McAllum 2014). Because of invasion and flawed welfare act, the aboriginal people lost their lands and jobs which forced them to depend on the passive economy. Generally, it led to a shift from real economy to passive economy. The welfare has inevitably caused social dissolution, the disintegration of the communities and the annihilation of culture (Pearson 2000, p.139). Moreover, passive welfare is an illogical economic relationship which forces to alter the behaviour to destructive one of dependency. This unjustifiable mode of welfare contains a superior power of decision making and paternalistic authority on behalf of powerless people. Besides this, the passive welfare indirectly controls the Aboriginal’s behaviour into a disastrous mentality, as seems themselves as victimised or incapable, which accepts all methods of governance. Furthermore, the oppressive welfare had indirectly influenced onto ‘behavioural of dependency’ and transforms across the generations. The generation has lost their relations bonds and values of sharing in the community because of the capacity deficiency of self-earning resulted from the brutal forced welfare system for proving the dominance of ‘white’. In addition, the vulgarism in governance over indigenous people continues over the period. The Coalition government have opposed ‘the concept’ of the current behaviour of indigenous people which says that dependency is associated with both passivity and long-term, self-destructive reliance on unearned economic support or ‘welfare’ (Stanford & Taylor 2013). Therefore, Invasion of aboriginal land & real sources of income and compliance on behavioural change of dependency under the welfare system was the untoward conception of the annihilation of aboriginal culture and claim of dominance.
In summary, welfare in a social setting is for assisting communities for their well-being and satisfaction in various components in their private life. However, the introduction of welfare measure by various governing bodies of Australia on aboriginal lives destructs their lives and culture by making certain policies for the strict compliance with the particular standard of behaviour. The most alarming truth behind the notion is that to maintain the dominant power and privilege of ‘whiteness’ over the indigenous people (powerless).