For some time, media in the liberal west have been looking on aghast at the apparent dystopian reality of surveillance happening in China through its 'social credit score'. Reports describe a government-run system that processes individuals' data — the data that we all produce through our online lives, and through ubiquitous CCTV.
Using this data as a proxy of people's activities, the program apparently awards each person a 'score' based on whether their activities are socially approved or not. This score can apparently affect access to employment, transport and public benefits, and in doing so, seeks to engineer social behaviour.
Despite some concerning examples of the social credit score in action, the program is not due to be rolled out until mid 2020. Presently, versions of it are being trialled in various locations. And these are apparently not the panopticon version portrayed in the Western media but are often public 'blacklists' of the 'worst offenders' in various regulatory agencies.
This is not to say that surveillance and censorship do not occur in China. But the response in the west assumes that this method of state control is already entrenched. And our obsession with the potential for human rights abuses in China masks the fact that we here in Australia are experiencing our own social credit score.
It is not news that the Australian government is relentless in its pursuit of those on social security payments. The robodebt program is evidence of that. But there are other concerning pointers to an active government agenda of social control.
One of these is the roll out of the Indue card. Trialled in Indigenous communities as a means of controlling spending — limiting it to the 'basics' — the card is being rolled out to other communities also. Ostensibly to stop spending on alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling, it also limits recipients' ability to pay for goods by cash and limits where recipients can spend.
A second is the control over activities by mothers receiving parenting payments through the 'Parents Next' program. The overwhelming majority of recipients are women, and there is a significant proportion of those who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australians. To continue to qualify for the payment, recipients must verify weekly that they have undertaken nominated activities with their children. Failure to do so without receiving an exemption results in losing their payment.
"The programs are couched in terms of mutual obligation, namely that the recipient has a duty to government to receive its munificence. It is, in fact, the responsibility of government to provide for the people."
A third is the drug testing of social security recipients. Wrapped up as concern about addiction, the proposed program will place anyone testing positive on income management for two years. If they get a second positive result, they will be referred to a doctor for treatment options and will be required to undergo drug treatment as part of their job plan. The legislation to implement the program is currently before the Senate. An inquiry has heard extensive testimony debunking the proposal including from medical specialists.
A fourth, and latest, pointer is the suggestion by Home Affairs Minister, Peter Dutton, that climate change protesters should have their welfare payments cut. He also suggested mandatory jail sentences for protesters and encouraged members of the public to take photos of protesters and to 'name and shame' them. Employment Minister Michaelia Cash has agreed reportedly saying: 'Protesting is not, and never will be, an exemption from a welfare recipient's mutual obligation to look for a job.'
All of these programs smack of benevolent paternalism that judge morality of social security recipients, and the message is clear. Drug use is personal failure; cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are weakness; single mothers are bad mothers; protesters are lazy and unproductive members of society. The solution? Government is everybody's long-suffering father, here to instruct a wayward public in proper civic behaviour by offering correctives to immoral behaviour.
The programs are also couched in terms of mutual obligation, namely that the recipient has a duty to government to receive its munificence. It is, in fact, the responsibility of government to provide for the people.
And even if one accepts some degree of accountability for payments, these programs beg the question of just how far government can reach into our lives to control how we live. If a person meets reporting requirements for Newstart, what right does government have to inquire further? So what if recipients spend their time volunteering, lying in bed, or engaging in peaceful protest? What possible value is there to anyone in interfering with the parenting decisions of parents receiving social security — on pain of losing payment?
If government is concerned for citizens' wellbeing, then it should properly resource services — drug and alcohol support, parenting support, subsidised childcare, financial counselling, education, and so on. Instead, it is generating a system of social credit: rewarding those who toe the line and punishing those whose 'score' falls below that of the 'good citizen'. We need not look overseas for such a dystopia. It exists in our own backyard.
Kate Galloway is a legal academic with an interest in social justice.
Main image: Credit EyeOfPaul / Getty