PoliticalClaims.au

### Cost Analysis: The "$10k Per Person" Claim - PARTIALLY ACCURATE

The claim that the trial cost "$10k per person per year" requires careful clarification of what costs are being measured [1]. **Initial Trial Setup Costs (2016):** When the first trial period was analyzed in early 2016, dividing total trial establishment costs by the early participant numbers (around 2,000) did initially produce a figure approaching $10,000 per participant annually.

However, this significantly misrepresents the actual operational costs [2]. **Actual Ongoing Administrative Costs:** The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) found that once the program was fully operational, the annual costs were substantially lower: - Department of Social Services stated the CDC administrative cost was approximately **$1,100 per participant annually** [3] - Payments to Indue (the private contractor) averaged approximately **$1,200 per card per year** [4] - Total trial spending: Indue received **$50.3 million over four and a half years** with an average of approximately 9,000 participants per year, equating to roughly $1,400 per person per year [2] The $10,000 figure cited in the claim appears to conflate **initial trial establishment costs** (infrastructure setup, pilot program costs, and one-time expenses) with **ongoing operational costs**.

While the establishment figure may technically be correct, presenting it as the "per year" cost is misleading [5].

AAP FactCheck specifically assessed this claim and found: "The cashless welfare card cost claim is misleading.

The $10,000-per-person-per-year figure appears to apply only to the initial trial phase, not the broader program, and the calculation method inflates the true operational cost" [2].

### Welfare Payment Amount Claim: NO EVIDENCE FOR "$14K PER PERSON"

The claim references welfare payments of "$14k per person per year," but no authoritative source supports this specific figure as a standard welfare payment amount [6]. **What participants actually received:** - Standard income support payments through normal government channels (JobSeeker, Family Tax Benefit, etc.) - These payments varied significantly by individual circumstance (unemployed, single parent, pensioner, etc.) - There was no fixed "$14,000 per person per year" welfare payment to the trial participants [7] **Card Coverage:** 80% of a participant's income support and welfare payments were compulsorily paid through the cashless card, with the remaining 20% deposited into a regular bank account without restrictions [8].

Without knowing the specific welfare payments each participant received, the "$14k" baseline figure cannot be verified from official sources.

This appears to be an assumed or estimated figure rather than an actual government statement [6].

### Trial Participant Numbers: ACCURATE

The number of trial participants is well-documented: - **Ceduna, South Australia:** 752 people on the card (565 Indigenous) as of 2016 [9] - **Kununurra and Wyndham, Western Australia:** 1,199 people on the card (984 Indigenous) as of 2016 [10] - The trials commenced March 15, 2016 (Ceduna) and April 26, 2016 (Kununurra) [9] This is consistent with the Guardian's reference to "fewer than 2000 people" in the trial phase [1].

### Participant Feedback: "Almost Half Say Lives Worse" - ACCURATE

The claim that "almost half of the participants claimed the trial made their lives worse" is well-supported by multiple independent evaluations. **Primary Finding:** According to trial evaluation surveys, **49% of participants reported the cashless welfare card had made their lives worse** [11].

This is strikingly close to the "almost half" stated in the claim. **Additional Evidence of Negative Impact:** - **On average, one in five participants reported their children were worse off** as a result of the card [11] - **70-76% wanted to exit the card program** [11] - Only **11-20% found the CDC useful and wanted to remain on it** [11] - In one evaluation, **32% said their lives were worse** (with only 23% saying they were better) [12] **Qualitative Impact:** Participants reported that the trials caused significant stress, tension, and worry in their communities.

Community leaders, particularly in Indigenous areas, described the card as "insulting and discriminatory" [13]. **Noteworthy Context:** Despite 80% of trial participants reporting they had no alcohol, drug, or gambling problems prior to the card, and the majority demonstrating they managed finances well previously, the card still restricted their ability to meet family needs and community obligations [14].

This suggests the trial failed to address its stated behavioral objectives for most participants [12]. ---