Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts

Monday 4 April 2022

Just in time for consideration before Australia goes to the polls to decide on which party will govern the nation, a study is published analysing Liberal Party violence against its female MPs & Senators

 

On 23 March 2022 the Australian Journal of Social Issues published the study The cost of doing politics: A critical discursive analysis of Australian liberal politicians’ responses to accusations by female politicians of bullying and intimidation”, authored by Jasmin Sorrentino (Uni of Adelaide), Martha Augoustinos (Professor, School of Psychology, Uni of Adelaide) and Amanda Le Couteur (Associate Professor, School of Psychology, Uni of Adelaide).


This study focussed on a six week period in August to September 2018 and analysed data comprised of transcripts extracted from the electronic parliamentary database, ParlInfo, as well as television and radio interviews, media announcements, speeches and doorstop interviews. This period coincided with the weeks following Scott Morrison's Liberal partyroom election to the prime ministership


A total of 601 transcripts were found and reduced by selecting transcripts that included direct speech from Liberal Party members, featured the search terms as a topic within the content of the transcript (and not simply the title) and by removing duplicates. Thus the final number of transcripts was reduced to 46, included 19 television, 19 radio and doorstop interviews.


Analysis of the data found two repertoires that were routinely mobilised by Liberal Party (LP) members to deny and mitigate accusations by female Liberal MPs of bullying and intimidation in their party: (1) a gender-neutral repertoire (13 instanceswhereby reported incidents of bullying were argued to apply equally to men and women and (2) a ‘politics is tough’ repertoire (16 instancesthat involved the normalisation of intimidation as part of political culture. Although there is some overlap between the two repertoires (i.e., the ‘politics is tough’ repertoire was commonly deployed alongside the gender-neutral repertoire), the repertoires were recognisable and distinct ways in which party members routinely made sense of gender discrimination.


The study Introduction states of the the background of research:


Recent conversations prompted by the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have put issues of workplace sexism, sexual harassment and sexual assault into the global spotlight. Women from various sectors, including film and television, technology, business and politics have spoken out on social media and other public spaces about their experiences of harassment or assault, and the problematic culture of their respective workplaces (Collier & Raney, 2018). In early 2021, new and historic sexual assault and rape allegations emerged in the Australian Parliament reigniting discussion about the political culture, including long-held debates about sexism and misogyny. Allegations included a young staffer's claims of rape by a senior colleague in 2019, and a 33-year-old claim of rape against Attorney-General, Christian Porter, from a woman who has since taken her own life (Nine News, 2021). In March 2021, PM Scott Morrison addressed the allegations, which he had previously dismissed as not requiring his immediate attention (Crowe, 2021). Commenting that the government would work towards addressing cultural issues around the treatment of women within parliament, he stated “blokes don't get it right all the time, we all know that, and … what matters is that we're desperately trying to and that's what I’m trying to do. And we will get this right. And we need to focus on that.” (Lowrey & Snape, 2021).


Despite the growing literature on violence against women in politics (VAWIP), little is known about how politicians understand and respond to acts of VAWIP. This study contributes to the emerging literature by analysing the public discourse of Australian Liberal Party (LP) members as they made sense of, and responded to, accusations by female Liberal MPs of bullying and intimidation in their party. The role of such discourse in legitimating and reproducing the status quo in terms of gender inequality will be examined…..


In 1.4 Background to the current study it further states:


In 2018, four female Liberal MPs in Australia made accusations of bullying and intimidation against their male colleagues and members of other parties. These accusations were made days after the swearing-in of Scott Morrison as Australia's 30th Prime Minister (PM) following a turbulent four-day leadership spill. Backbencher Julia Banks announced her resignation from the Liberal Party in August 2018, describing behaviour displayed during the leadership spill as “the scourge of cultural and gender bias, bullying and intimidation [that] continues against women in politics, the media, and across business” (Banks, 2018). In September 2018, former Liberal Deputy Leader and Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop5 spoke about the underrepresentation of women in parliament, stating that the behaviour towards women “would not be tolerated in any other workplace across Australia” (Branley, 2018). In February 2019, Bishop announced that she would not contest the next election. Liberal Senators Linda Reynolds and Lucy Gichuhi also called out bullying and intimidation of women within the party in August and September 2018, respectively, threatening to go public with details (Grattan, 2018; Karvelas, 2018a). They later chose not to ‘name names’ in parliament and instead agreed to follow an internal complaints process (Karp, 2018). Although media attention largely focussed on the Liberal Party's ‘woman problem’ (Maley, 2018), it was a period in which women across party lines began denouncing sexism and harassment in the Australian Parliament.


In 3.1 Redefining bullying: gender-neutral formulations the study observed:


LP members’ responses to questions posed by interviewers about accusations of bullying and intimidation in their party made by female MPs. LP members routinely produced responses that rejected categorising what had occurred as ‘bullying’, followed by a redefinition of the behaviour as something else. Specifically, reported incidents of bullying were minimised by providing alternative descriptions such as ‘pressure’ (n = 7) and ‘robust discussion’ (n = 6). Accounts typically involved the use of gender-neutral pronouns or gender-equivalent descriptions, that served to make the gendered nature of the bullying and intimidation irrelevant within the political context. The extracts presented below illustrate how gender-neutral accounts were used to discount the validity of claims of bullying by denying the relevance of gender. Such positioning fosters the conclusion that claims of bullying by female MPs are unfounded because men and women are equal in their experiences.


Extract 1 illustrates the way questions posed by interviewers about bullying and intimidation were routinely redefined as matters involving ‘pressure’ and as having been experienced by both men and women. The extract comes from an Australian news and current affairs talk show, The Project (2018). Panel members, Gorgi Coghlan and Hamish Macdonald ask PM, Scott Morrison, about accusations made by female Liberal MPs that bullying occurred during the leadership spill. The ‘politics is tough’ and gender-neutral repertoires simultaneously deny and minimise accusations of bullying towards female MPs.


EXTRACT 1. Scott Morrison 6 September 2018….


In this extract, PM Morrison's account in response to a question from the interviewer (Coghlan) is a denial that bullying of female MPs occurred. His description of the nature of politics as “ferocious” (l.5), and the “last decade” (l.6) as being exceptional in this regard (“the most ferocious period” l.5–6) serves not only to dismiss Coghlan's question about women being bullied during the specific time of the leadership spill (l.2–4) but also to normalise politics as a uniquely difficult environment. On line 9, Morrison downgrades his initial specification of the “ferocious” (l.5, 8) nature of politics by describing the period of voting during a leadership spill (“these ballots” l.18) as involving “a lot of pressure”. This term is recycled at lines 17 and 19, where Morrison responds to the interviewer's question (“Were women bullied in the Liberal Party to vote a certain way?” l.4). Morrison does not pick-up the gender category introduced by Coghlan (“women” l.4), but turns a gendered account into a gender-neutral one by redefining the proposed bullying as something that affects both “men and women” (l.9). This gender-neutralising account invalidates claims that female MPs were bullied by representing both men and women as equal in their experience of “pressure” in politics. Morrison further undermines claims of bullying by constructing a version of the context of the behaviours’ occurrence as distinct from the normal business of politics: “these difficult periods” (l.25).


Extract 2 illustrates another way LP members made sense of bullying claims: redefining bullying as a matter of people speaking strongly. Across the data corpus, variants of this pattern included descriptions of “robust discussions”, “vigorous debates”, “robust argument”, “intense lobbying” and people trying to “persuade each other”. The extract below comes from an interview segment on Sky News Australia, between Victorian Liberal Party State President, Michael Kroger, and host, Laura Jayes (Jayes, 2018). Prior to this segment, Jayes had asked Kroger whether he believes the LP is facing some problems, given that Julia Banks resigned from politics citing bullying as a key reason. Kroger responded by stating that he had spoken to a female MP who said she had not observed any evidence of bullying. The extract below continues this discussion.


EXTRACT 2. Michael Kroger 29 August 2018…..


Kroger's response involves a combination of denial that bullying occurred, the redefinition of intimidation as a matter of (gender-neutral) “people” “speaking strongly to one another”, and the normalisation of such behaviour in politics. His account is built using consensus and corroboration (“I’ve spoken to a number of people” l.2), and extreme case formulation (“none of them” l.2), with both devices functioning to present his argument as widely shared and valid. Notably, Kroger's denial of bullying is not limited to women as targets; he claims that both men and women (l.3) have denied experiencing bullying and intimidation, which also builds the credibility of his account. On line 4–5, Kroger redefines the behaviour in question as being “people speak[ing] strongly to one another”, with a variation at line 10 (“people raise their voice”) which is treated as normal, expected, and appropriate in a political context (“seriously this is politics “l.4, “That's what happens” l.7). These constructions function to do three things. First, and consistent with Extract 1, the gender-neutral account undermines and negates the veracity of bullying accusations by making the salience of social group memberships irrelevant. As Riley (2002) noted, the use of category-neutral terms over social categories (e.g., age, sex or ethnicity) works to mask the potential common experience that members might share. Such gender-neutral terminology also undermines an alternative version—that female members of the LP experience gender-based discrimination—and the seriousness of the behaviour in question. Second, Kroger's redefinition positions such behaviour (e.g., people speaking strongly) as hegemonic, rather than controversial and requiring explanation. Third, Kroger tries to deflect and distract from the issue at hand by referencing the opposition party's widely acknowledged bitter leadership changes (l.7–8), building a case for the normality of “strong feelings” at such times, and thus undermining the need for change.


The study also addressed the nature of violence against women in politics (VAWIP) and broadly accepted internal political party VAWIP as “behaviour that specifically targets women as women to leave politics by pressuring them to step down as candidates or resign a particular political office”.


Going on to state:


VAWIP can have profound effects on women. Those who have been the targets of gender-based violence have reported feelings of loneliness and work dissatisfaction, frustration due to the barriers impeding their political contributions, as well as a desire to leave politics (Krook, 2020). VAWIP also has broader societal impacts in terms of electoral integrity (i.e., procedural fairness and equality of opportunity) and democracy. In other words, VAWIP violates principles of equality because women—by virtue of their gender—are the targets of violence.

See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajs4.209


Morrison quoted and critiqued in Crikey, 31 March 2022 concerning an incident which occurred in the Senate on the evening of Friday 29 March:


There’s an ever-growing list of women claiming bullying is rife in the Liberal Party, and in a blistering post-budget take-down, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells joined the ranks. It didn’t take long for Scott Morrison to deflect the claims with his reliable and oft-used spin of a woman scorned.


I know Connie is disappointed,” the prime minister said.


Those five words are all it takes to tell a story of a bitter, rejected woman, as if losing her Senate ticket alone would inspire Fierravanti-Wells to stand up in Parliament and tear Morrison and others to shreds. Her detailed account of toxic factional dealings reduced to an emotional outburst with just one short retort.


It’s no surprise that Morrison wasn’t going to cop the accusations on the chin and instead direct any “specific complaints” of bullying to internal party mechanisms.


His handling of the matter is reminiscent of the treatment of former MP Julia Banks. While Banks and Fierravanti-Wells don’t have much in common politically, the dismissal of their serious and scathing accusations of bullying carry plenty of similarities.


When Banks announced she was not contesting the 2019 election, Morrison quickly took up the line that Banks was struggling personally. “I’m supporting Julia and I’m reaching out to Julia and giving her every comfort and support for what has been a pretty torrid ordeal for her,” he said.


His “concern” framed Banks as a woman unable to cope with the fallout of Malcolm Turnbull’s losing the prime ministership. But in fact — as Banks made abundantly clear in her book Power Play — it was her three months under Morrison’s leadership that led her to call it a day. She described him as “menacing, controlling wallpaper” in her book.


Banks has reflected on how Morrison controlled the narrative to try to get ahead of the bullying accusations, with the story that Banks was “this weak petal that hadn’t coped with coup week”.


Fierravanti-Wells on the other hand was able to get her shots in before she could be framed as mentally unstable, so instead she’s received the straight-up scorned woman framing. Either way the dismissal is the same. Whether before or after the fact, Morrison resorts to the narrative of the emotional woman, too fragile to deal with politics, lashing out without reason……


Tuesday 1 February 2022

CASHLESS DEBIT CARD 2022: make no mistake, Morrison will continue with his relentless - in his eyes seemingly 'righteous' - push to control the incomes and minutiae of daily living of as many ordinary Australians as he can convince Parliament to punitively define as ignorant, poor, deviant or Aboriginal at risk


On 17 December 2020 provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 received assent and were incorporated into Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.


The principal purpose of that bill was to widen the scope of the Cashless Debit Card Trial, rename the trial as a “program” and establish it as an national ongoing social security program.


Those pentecostal buddies, Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison and then Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Minister for Minister for Government Services & still LNP MP for Fadden Stuart Robert, along with another member of the ‘Morrison Group’, Minister for Families and Social Services & Liberal Senator for South Australia Anne Rushton, were able to widen the scope of the trial & rename the Cashless Debit Card trial a “program”.


However, although the entire Northern Territory is now a Cashless Debit Card Program Area participation in the scheme is voluntary and despite sustained effort on the part of federal government the Cashless Debit Card Trial remains a trial with a sunset date of 31 December 2022 in all other remaining trial sites.


The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has been attempting to create a coercive, punitive, cashless payment system for government pensions, benefits, allowances and one-off payments since 2014 and, they have become quite skilled at political & legislative incremental creep.


Make no mistake, Morrison, the man who since at least 2006 has been voicing his belief that this is what the Lord wants … He wants me to become prime minister and who as prime minister seeks signs from God on how to proceed during an election campaign as well as secretly ‘laying hands on’ and praying for people he personally comes into contact with, will continue with his relentless - in his eyes seemingly 'righteous' - push to control the incomes and minutiae of daily living of as many ordinary Australians as he can convince Parliament to punitively define as ignorant, poor, deviant or Aboriginal at risk.


BACKGROUND


 7 News, 16 March 2021:


A $2.5 million government report into the cashless debit card is inconclusive on whether it reduces harm from alcohol, drugs and gambling, but has found people on the welfare cards are ashamed and embarrassed.


It’s ostrich policy - put your head in the sand,” Labor MP Linda Burney told reporters in Canberra on Thursday.


We do not believe there should be mandatory, universal application of a cashless debit card because people are on Centrelink benefits.”


Social Services Minister Anne Ruston made the decision to extend the trial sites without any evidence and without waiting for the report, Ms Burney said.


Commissioned in 2018, the University of Adelaide’s report on the cashless debit card looked at whether alcohol and drug use, violence and gambling reduced during trials of the card in Ceduna, East Kimberley and the Goldfields but found no conclusive evidence.


In many cases we found the reality to be more complex and nuanced than can be expressed as clear cut answers,” research head Kostas Mavromaras said in the report.


Ms Burney said the research “tells us nothing and is a complete waste of time”.


Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said the card is “racist and discriminatory” and should be abandoned.


These trials were always about targeting First Nations peoples, stigmatising people on income support and those with addiction issues rather than addressing the underlying causes of disadvantage,” Senator Siewert said.


The evaluation itself notes the difficulty in evaluating the so-called trials because they were never set up to be properly evaluated.”….


# Cashless Debit Card (CDC) Extended Rollout 2021: Briefing Paper March 2021


# Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Legislation Committee (Nov 2019) Inquiry into the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management to Cashless Debit Card Transition) Bill 2019 [Provisions], Submission 1, Professor Matthew Gray & Dr. Rob Bray, ATTACHMENT A: Bray, J Rob (October 2019), ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Measuring the social impact of Income Management in the Northern Territory – an updated analysis”:


Executive Summary


A stated objective of income management in the Northern Territory, both under the Northern Territory Emergency Response, and through ‘New Income Management’ (NIM) has been to improve outcomes for individuals, their families and the communities they live in. The 2014 evaluation of NIM reported that it could not identify any impacts in its analysis of social outcomes that could be attributed to the policy.


This paper seeks to re‐examine this question using data, where possible from before the initial introduction of income management under the NTERIM, to the most recently available.


The magnitude of the program in the Northern Territory, with one third of Indigenous people aged 15 years and over directly being subject to the policy is such that to the extent the program makes an impact this should be apparent at the community level, in particular in contrast to the experience of non‐Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, and the Indigenous population nationally both of which were only lightly touched by these programs.


Analysis of key social outcomes indicates:


Over the period of income management the rate of infant mortality amongst Indigenous people in the Northern Territory has increased, this contrasts with falls for Indigenous people nationally and for non‐Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. This group has also seen a rise in low birth weight births, and an increase in child deaths from injury. Child abuse and neglect substantiations have also increased, although it is noted this may be influenced by a willingness to report. Indigenous children in the Northern Territory have not seen the same declines in developmental vulnerability as have Indigenous children elsewhere.


The period since the introduction of income management has seen falling rates of school attendance by Indigenous children in the Northern Territory, and while some NAPLAN results have improved for these children, others have not. Again where there have been gains these are smaller than those for Indigenous children nationally.


There is strong evidence of a decline in alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory. This is a trend that pre‐dates the introduction of income management with research identifying a range of policies, including pricing and supply limitations which appear to be driving it. Notwithstanding this Indigenous people do not report a lower rate of risky drinking in 2014‐15 than they did in 2002, and alcohol related emergency department presentations have increased.


Rates of assaults appear to be largely flat, although there is a decline in assaults associated with alcohol. No consistent pattern of declining crime is identifiable in data from 2007 onwards, although there is evidence of particular alcohol restriction enforcement activities directly impacting on crime. The rate of imprisonment of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory has continued to rise strongly across the period of income management. These findings not only reflect upon a failure of income management policies to achieve their goals, but also have implications for a wider range of interventions under the Northern Territory Emergency Response and Stronger Futures….. [my yellow highlighting]


The completer 59 page submission can be read and/or downloaded at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I9w2Tdurcb1XaiAlyrqA53yZPlKiVrkf/view

OR

sub01_ANUCSRM.


# The Cashless Debit Card scheme covering people who receive working age welfare payments is currently applied to residents in six areas.

These are:

Ceduna, South Australia

Kununurra and Wyndham in the East Kimberly region, Western Australia

Goldfields region, Western Australia

Bundaberg, Hervey Bay region, Queensland

Cape York, Queensland, and

the Northern Territory.


According to the Dept. of Social Services on 31 January 2022:


In the Ceduna region, the Goldfields region and the East Kimberley region the program applies to all people who receive a working age welfare payment. People receiving the Age Pension may volunteer to participate.


In the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region, the program applies to people aged 35 and under who receive JobSeeker Payment, Youth Allowance (Job seeker), Parenting Payment (Partnered) and Parenting Payment (Single). People over 35 years of age or receiving the Age Pension may volunteer to participate.


In the Cape York region in Queensland, the program applies to those who the Family Responsibilities Commission have referred. People on Age Pension may choose to volunteer to participate.


In the Northern Territory, the program applies to Income Management participants who have chosen to transition to Cashless Debit Card as well as eligible income support recipients who have volunteered for the program. If you live in the Northern Territory, you can now transition to the Cashless Debit Card on the same day.


According to Services Australia on 22 January 2022:


  • You will have access to 20 per cent (50 per cent for most participants in the Northern Territory and Cape York) of your welfare payment that you can withdraw as cash to use in circumstances where only cash is accepted, for example at school canteens, fetes and farmers markets.


  • If you were placed on the Cashless Debit Card in one of the first four sites, you can also transfer up to $200 per 28 days to your regular bank account.


  • The Cashless Debit Card works at businesses that accept eftpos or Visa. The only time the card cannot be used is for the purchase of alcohol, gambling products, cash-like gift cards or to withdraw cash. Or for any other goods or services determined by the Commonwealth of Australia to be banned goods/services in accordance with the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth).


  • Indue Limited and the Traditional Credit Union are the designated debit card suppliers/restricted bank account managers.



  • There appears to be no formal mechanism in place to appeal to Dept. of Social Security, Centrelink or Services Australia concerning any decisions or action taken by Indue Limited with regard to any  particular restricted bank account.


Friday 12 November 2021

So what do you know about the people behind management of the Morrison Government's punitive Cashless Debit Card? Perhaps it's time to meet Indue Limited's board of directors & their industry partners


 

IMAGE: news.com.au, 30.01.2019


Just as night follows day, if Scott John Morrison and the Liberal-Nationals Coalition win the federal government election, by the last quarter of 2022 he will announce all government cash transfers to citizens will in future come via the highly restrictive and punitive cashless debit card scheme.


So who has been milking the cash cow as they constructed the mechanism for Morrison's dream of a frightened, deprived and suppressed working class he could strut before?


Well that an easy question to answer - just hit this link 

https://www2.indue.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/J0982-Indue-Annual-Report-2021_WEB.pdf  and scroll down to pages 14-15 to see their six self-satisfied faces along with a brief bio.


A bit of background......


Sometime in early 2016 the Australian Government through its agency the Dept. of Social Services entered into a contract with Indue Limited, currently valued at $70,340,628.60 (original value: $7,859,509). This contract period now extends from 26-Feb-2016 to 31-Dec-2022.


Indue Limited documents clearly state that its investors-shareholders are “the owners of the company” and that those who contract the company’s services are its “clients” or “customers”.


In relation to the cashless debit card scheme it administers, it appears that the relatively large class of mandatory users of this card during this extended trial period & the somewhat smaller number of voluntary users are simply end product consumers.


How Indue Limited sees itself:……..


Indue Limited ABN 97 087 822 464 (“Indue”) is a bank and Authorised Deposit-Taking Institution (“ADI”) that is regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Indue is owned by financial institutions, each of which is also an ADI. Indue provides transaction processing and settlement services to credit unions, building societies, church funds, mortgage originators, commercial clients and the Australian government. Many clients would be too small individually to be able to provide a competitive alternative financial services offering without Indue.


Indue has over 40 years’ experience in the payments industry and as a financial product issuer since 1992. Indue is a principal member of Visa, MasterCard and eftpos, and holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). It is also a reporting entity pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) legislation. [Submission to the Australian Treasury. 7 September 2018, excerpt]


Indue Limited has 7 major partners which includes it being a principal member of Visa licensed to issue all Visa card products including credit, debit, prepaid, commercial and premium cards; ia member of eftpos and licensed to issue eftpos card products. These cards may be used in ATMs and eftpos terminals throughout the domestic Australian eftpos network; and, ia member of BPAY allowing us to offer both payer and biller facilities to clients.


2019-20


Indue’s vision is to be the leading partner of payment solutions to our customers. Indue’s mission is to drive competitive advantage for our customers by helping people pay….


Wholly owned Group

The Company does not have significant restrictions on its ability to access or use its assets and settle its liabilities other than those resulting from the supervisory frameworks within which Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions operate.

Transactions with related parties are conducted on an arm’s length basis….


Against this backdrop [global COVID-19 pandemic] Indue delivered a before tax profit of $3.127 million, a solid result given the prevailing headwinds…..


Events Subsequent to Balance Date

At the date of approving these financial statements, the Directors are of the view the effects of COVID-19 do not change the significant estimates, judgements and assumptions in the preparation of the financial statement…..


Likely Developments

Information on likely developments in the operations of the Company and the expected results of operations have not been included in this annual financial report because the Directors believe it would be likely to result in unreasonable prejudice to the Company. [NOTE: Likely relying on s299A(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in order to conceal expected future progression of the federal government cashless debit card scheme]

[Indue Limited, Annual Report 2019-2020]


2020-21


It is pleasing to report a lift in profit, despite the ongoing influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. ….


A more positive outlook has contributed to our improved performance, with a Profit Before Tax (PBT) result of $3.6 million, an increase of 24% over the previous year….


An operating profit after tax of $2.583 million (2020: $2.091 million) was achieved this year….


Indue’s capital position remains sound. Our Tier 1 ratio rose to 15.5% at the end of FY21, an increase of 35 basis points on last year.


In relation to dividends, we have a good record of rewarding owners for providing investment capital. With an improved economic outlook and stronger financial performance, we are pleased to be able to declare a fully franked dividend of $7.50 per share for FY22….


After nearly 50 years, our partnership with Westpac is coming to an end in 2022. We are moving to become a Tier 1 provider for Direct Entry services, which is well-aligned to our strategy. We look forward to continuing to support our clients in this important payment channel.


Our core focus continues to be delivering sustainable value for our clients and shareholders….


We will continue to support our clients, so they can focus on growing their businesses – while we navigate the changed world of payments on their behalf….


The constitution of the Company provides for two Groups of Directors, both elected in accordance with the constitution. Group One Directors, referred to as ‘Industry Directors’, must be officers, employees or associates of a member. Group Two Directors, referred to as ‘Independent Directors’ must not be officers, employees or associates of a member. Industry Directors are not remunerated by the Company. Independent Directors are remunerated by the Company, with shareholders determining the maximum annual aggregate amount of remuneration that may be provided to them ….


The following persons were Directors of Indue Ltd during the financial year:

Chair – Non executive [Independent]

F[rank] Gullone (appointed 28 August 2020)

R Burns (resigned 27 November 2020)

Non executive Directors [Independent]

S Collier (resigned 27 November 2020)

M[ichael Francis] Currie

P[eter Robert] Townsend

P[eter Hooper] Wright

A[nthony] De Fazio

S[usan] Rix (appointed 8 January 2021) [my yellow highlighting]

A Cheadle (appointed 8 January 2021, resigned 27 May 2021)....


The Company’s Authorised Share Capital is $17.265 million. All issued shares [total of 126,182] are fully paid ….


In August 2021 Indue entered into a share buyback arrangement for a small number of issued shares….


Total Contributed Equity, Reserves, Retained Earnings, Balance at 30 June 2021 = $58,650,000 ” …..


Government grants

Government grants, including JobKeeper, are recognised when there is a reasonable assurance that the Company will comply with the conditions attached to the grant, and the grant will be received.

The Company became eligible for JobKeeper in June 2020 after meeting the specific obligations, and remained eligible until September 2020. All expected grant payments were received by October 2020…...

[Indue Limited, Annual Report 2020-2021, excerpts]


The Guardian, 4 November 2021:


*The company contracted by the federal government to run the controversial cashless debit card claimed $2m in jobkeeper payments before increasing its revenues during the pandemic.


Payments firm Indue, which was handed a $26m, two-year extension to its contract to keep running the scheme late last year, received about $2.1m in jobkeeper wage subsidies in total. That comprised $632,700 in June 2020 and $1.49m between July and September 2020, according to its annual report.


The company’s revenue increased in 2019-20 and 2020-21, leading to profit of $2.1m and $2.5m, the report shows.


Under the jobkeeper program, businesses were required to estimate whether their turnover would decrease by 30-50% when compared to the previous year, depending on their size. There is no suggestion Indue did not qualify for the payments under the rules of the scheme.


Controversially, the government elected not to include a clawback provision to recoup money from those companies that outperformed expectations…..


https://www.scribd.com/document/538531113/INDUE-LIMITED-Current-Historical-Company-Extract