<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>[Womenforwik] (no subject)</TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=unicode" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr>Sending this around because I couldn't believe Minister Macklin's soft-drink response when I heard it last night either...</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Heather
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> womenforwik-bounces@whatsworking.com.au on behalf of eva cox<BR><B>Sent:</B> Mon 17/05/2010 9:24 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Womenforwik@whatsworking.com.au<BR><B>Cc:</B> ausfem-polnet@postoffice.utas.edu.au; womenspeak@lists.nwjc.org.au; dissenting-voices@listserv.uts.edu.au<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Womenforwik] (no subject)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>MEDIA Release<BR><BR>Evidence Trivialised into a Lemonade solution<BR><BR>Minister Macklin's response to the latest evidence that Income Management<BR>doesn't work, from the newly released Menzies Health Centre study, is only<BR>the latest example of anti-evidence based decisions in the welfare system.<BR>Jumbunna, the UTS Indigenous research unit, released a report last week<BR>summarising the evidence for and against the proposed changes which shows<BR>that there is little hard evidence and even less support for the proposed<BR>changes. Of all the many major welfare agencies that put their views to the<BR>Senate Inquiry NONE supported the current proposal.<BR><BR>The Government response yesterday, was incredibly trivial and dismissive as<BR>reported on the News website:<BR><BR>'THE Federal Government will look at new ways to cut down soft drink<BR>consumption in remote Northern Territory communities. It has requested<BR>bureaucrats recommend ways to help reduce sales of high sugar drinks in<BR>indigenous communities. The Government response follows a study from the<BR>Darwin-based Menzies School of Health Research, released today, that found<BR>income management in the NT had done little to dampen soft-drink sales.'<BR><BR>This is a ludicrously trivialising response to a report, as reported on the<BR>ABC News site, which seriously questioned the value of the program:<BR><BR>A group of leading academics from across the nation says the Federal<BR>Intervention is doing more harm than good in the Northern Territory. The<BR>Intervention is a series of welfare reforms and packages aimed at tackling<BR>claims of rampant sexual abuse and health problems in remote communities.<BR>But according to new research published in the Medical Journal of Australia,<BR>income management has not resulted in more healthy food being bought and<BR>eaten by many Aborigines.<BR><BR>The MJA report itself finishes with: 'The government's aim in introducing<BR>income management is to ensure that people receiving welfare payments use<BR>this money in a government-prescribed "socially responsible" way, and in a<BR>way that makes money available to "feed, clothe, house and provide for the<BR>education of their children". Our findings suggest that income management<BR>may not be associated with healthier food and drink purchases, and may be<BR>having no effect on tobacco sales'.<BR><BR>This study should be taken together with the Australian Indigenous Doctors<BR>finding about psychological harm of being shamed by loss of control in<BR>compulsory Income Management. The SMH today quotes the president of the<BR>Australian Indigenous Doctors Association, Peter O'Mara, as saying there<BR>were concerns the intervention was doing ''more harm than good'' and income<BR>management was one of the chief problems.<BR><BR>We have attached the summary section of our report. The full report can be<BR>obtained by from eva.cox@uts.edu.au. It was completed before the full<BR>Menzies Research report was available but already offers ample evidence for<BR>not continuing or expanding income management in its current or proposed<BR>form.<BR><BR>Eva Cox Research Fellow Jumbunna May 17th 2010.<BR></FONT></P></DIV><p><span style=color:black;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow",Arial,sans-serif><br>This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.</span></p></BODY></HTML>