This paper examines the forms of life established through the visual governance of the Australian social security mobile app (application)-the Express Plus Centrelink app. It is argued that the app exceeds established accounts of juridical and administrative power. The app involves a seeing that is not public, a responding that is not writing and a de-materialisation of an institution and its disciplinary apparatus. It is argued that the app creates proto-literate subjects that are required to respond to a real-time sequence of images in a highly structured and circumscribed manner to become complicit in the digitalisation of their life.

In Australia’s heavily targeted social welfare apparatus, couples are assessed jointly for their eligibility for social security payment. Specific guidelines for deciding if a social security recipient is a member of a couple are provided by the ‘couple rule’ in section 4(3) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). A plethora of information is used by the Department to decide if a social security recipient is a member of a couple for social security purposes. Of particular concern is the use of domestic violence police reports as evidence of a couple relationship. This article argues that the current use of police domestic violence reports in ‘couple rule’ decisions is problematic. This is because it effectively entraps women in violent relationships, provides a financial barrier to leaving and is used by perpetrators to further control their victims.

No abstract

The helping professions are increasingly using digital technologies like automated decision making, artificial intelligence and video or telehealth to meet the needs of their clients (Carney, 2020;Henman 2019). This trend was accelerated by the pandemic, as we relied more on digital connections and service models to ensure continuity and care during periods of lockdown and in accordance with social distancing guidelines (Meijer, & Webster, 2020). Consultations over real-time video (e.g. Zoom), once the topic of futuristic, speculative fiction have become commonplace, even mundane. Automated, digital solutions are also becoming increasingly commonplace across different human service contexts. For instance, the use of chat bots by Services Australia that use artificial intelligence to understand your questions, and answer them, have been rolled out over recent years as the number of people accessing online support during the pandemic escalated. Even facial recognition technology was trialled in Australia for the first time in a social services context, during the 2020 bushfires, allowing speedy identification and assessment of people in need after their documentation had been destroyed in the fires (Hendry, 2020). The phasing out of cash and rise of digital currencies and service platforms are further evidence that our world is rapidly becoming more digitised. Concordantly, the receipt of care and support is increasingly becoming dependent on access to digital technologies. This presents a new challenge -i.e. digital inclusion. Digital inclusion is about ensuring all can access and use digital technology and services (Australian Digital Inclusion Index, 2021; United Nations, 2021). If we aim to avoid a growing divide based on digital inclusion/exclusion, it is vital that attention to inequalities are at the forefront of our minds if the embrace of all things digital continues unabated (Crawford, 2021).

2020 has been a defining year. The globe is still grappling with second and third waves of COVID-19, the pink recession and Black Lives Matter show that gender, race and class are still key fault lines where inequality occurs, and we have had a US election like no other. Thank you for still being here! 2020 has had the world's fortitude tested. The coronavirus pandemic and its epic impact has left us reappraising what might be a better new normal. Many people's lives have changed in ways inconceivable before COVID-19. Many changes are temporary, but some, like working remotely, generous redistribution of public funds, and renewed interest in public health, may be here to stay and indicate an acceleration of broader processes (Pimentel, 2020;Dartnell, 2020). Turning to the US election, that witnessed a low point in US politics with an unconceded loss from the outgoing President, but with the highest ever number of voters resulting in the first woman and woman of colour Vice President, change seems imminent.Previous epidemics have led to major changes in social and public life. Foucault (1979) writes of how the plague in medieval Europe birthed the very idea of public health and incubated the link between urban planning and the wellbeing of populations. The cholera epidemic in Europe in the 19 th Century led to public sanitation and clean public water, ending the disposing of sewerage in open drains and regulating the collection of contaminated water 1 (Davenport, 2019). The Spanish flu in 1918 has been accredited with popularising the concept of "socialised medicine -healthcare for all" as many governments realised that the health of the whole is vital for the health of individuals (Spinney, 2020). Through calamity can come great progress. What will be the positive outcomes from our current challenges?