|
Post by isleboy on Nov 5, 2017 11:35:22 GMT 7
Yeap, it's all about promoting business. The bastards are in on it 1st & foremost to reap handsome profits. In addition to their massive profits, they force people to spent their whole 80%, or the thieving scumbags will even take that away too, as they still don't have enough. Absolutely mind boggling!
|
|
|
Post by mspurple on Nov 5, 2017 12:04:32 GMT 7
Surely, the card company keeping what you don't spend of the 80% can't be right? What happens if you have been in hospital for the second week of your fortnightly pay and you still need to pay your rent and bills? I am having trouble seeing how something that is allocated to you but not yet used by you, can be taken from you by the company that made the agreement to provide the card service.
Can anyone tell me where I would find this information? I am sure I read (on one of the sites that has cashless card information) that the unused funds remain in your account, so you can save for bigger purchases like furniture.
I fail to see how doing this to people is in their best interest, I have heard many times in the past, if children have no access to money, they have no idea how to manage it. I think the same thing will happen to adults who have their right to cash removed or strictly limited. I know if this happens to me, I will end up trying to put everything on the cashless card, so as to hoard the cash. I am terrified of how I will manage if this card does progress to being the normal way centrelink pays us. Might start trying to stash some cash away incase this does become the norm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 12:36:21 GMT 7
Lots of people with links to the liberals will get filthy rich off this card, l read INDUE will make a fortune from interest payments from holding our cash and they will get a transaction fee evertime we use the card, imagine if all 2 million welfare recipiants are on the card, its a licence to print money, also its costs up to $10,000 per person to have them on the card, the liberals would be channeling billions of taxpayers money into INDUE corporation and making the 2 million people on welfare slaves to INDUE company who will tell us what we are allowed to buy and where we are allowed to shop and control our money for us, you cant shop at any place that not on INDUE ' approved merchant list'. They should call it the ' apartheid card' its apartheid for all forced onto it
|
|
|
Post by mspurple on Nov 5, 2017 12:39:16 GMT 7
I have just read a few different articles on this topic and I found an article that said that the trial in the East Kimberley was sweetened with a $1.5 million dollar deal for the community as they badly needed services. It also said, that to have the amount of money that is quarantined reduced, participants had to speak to a community panel and have it reduced by other community members.
So they used bribery to get one of the areas to be involved in the trial, which is disgusting. Also they put other members of the community in the position of power over the rest of the community members lifestyle choices and needs. How much lower can the government and centrelink get? I wonder.
I was still not able to find anywhere that stated that left over monies at the end of the fortnight would be forfeited. I will keep searching though.
|
|
|
Post by isleboy on Nov 5, 2017 12:40:56 GMT 7
Lots of people with links to the liberals will get filthy rich off this card, l read INDUE will make a fortune from interest payments from holding our cash and they will get a transaction fee evertime we use the card, imagine if all 2 million welfare recipiants are on the card, its a licence to print money, also its costs up to $10,000 per person to have them on the card, the liberals would be channeling billions of taxpayers money into INDUE corporation and making the 2 million people on welfare slaves to INDUE company who will tell us what we are allowed to buy and where we are allowed to shop and control our money for us, you cant shop at any place that not on INDUE ' approved merchant list' They will also be able to closely monitor each & every transaction & be able to draw a profile from people, of the purchases that they make. I'm not sure if writing to the politicians will be able to make much of a difference, as most of them put their personal interests in 1st & foremost. Money sure talks, doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by isleboy on Nov 5, 2017 18:02:16 GMT 7
Lots of people with links to the liberals will get filthy rich off this card, l read INDUE will make a fortune from interest payments from holding our cash and they will get a transaction fee evertime we use the card, imagine if all 2 million welfare recipiants are on the card, its a licence to print money, also its costs up to $10,000 per person to have them on the card, the liberals would be channeling billions of taxpayers money into INDUE corporation and making the 2 million people on welfare slaves to INDUE company who will tell us what we are allowed to buy and where we are allowed to shop and control our money for us, you cant shop at any place that not on INDUE ' approved merchant list'. They should call it the ' apartheid card' its apartheid for all forced onto it There are 111 comments now over here, some recent ones are very informative indeed. The last comments were posted on October 23rd. It is interesting btw that Forrest’s card area of operation, is also in areas where his mines are located. Coincidence? Unlikely. Another thing, it's unlikely that we can depend on Labor to completely stop it, so don't vote for them. The Greens maybe more likely.
|
|
|
Post by anotherdsp on Nov 5, 2017 19:55:27 GMT 7
yep forrest has been sniffing around up north for a while,iam waiting to see him get his payoff by getting some mining leases granted!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 22:12:50 GMT 7
The whole card idea being invented and pushed by an unelected billionaire mining magnate with mates in the liberal party and the private company INDUE that operates the card having links to former liberal nationals, the whole thing stinks of greed and corruption and the expoitation and persecution of the poorest in society to line the pockets of the rich, twiggy forrest and the liberals lieing and demonising the 2 million people on Centrelink benefits by saying they are pity much mostly drunks, drug addcits and gamblers not capable of mananging their own income
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 5:43:21 GMT 7
Lots of people with links to the liberals will get filthy rich off this card, l read INDUE will make a fortune from interest payments from holding our cash and they will get a transaction fee evertime we use the card, imagine if all 2 million welfare recipiants are on the card, its a licence to print money, also its costs up to $10,000 per person to have them on the card, the liberals would be channeling billions of taxpayers money into INDUE corporation and making the 2 million people on welfare slaves to INDUE company who will tell us what we are allowed to buy and where we are allowed to shop and control our money for us, you cant shop at any place that not on INDUE ' approved merchant list'. They should call it the ' apartheid card' its apartheid for all forced onto it There are 111 comments now over here, some recent ones are very informative indeed. The last comments were posted on October 23rd. It is interesting btw that Forrest’s card area of operation, is also in areas where his mines are located. Coincidence? Unlikely. Another thing, it's unlikely that we can depend on Labor to completely stop it, so don't vote for them. The Greens maybe more likely. It's unbelievable with all that is known that an ICAC can not be initiated. isleboy's link takes us to here :- theaimn.com/lnp-welfare-card-true-facts-exposed-corruption-disguised-philanthropy/#comments)Here is a letter written to my Federal Member & State Senators. I don't hold out much hope of a reply from most as they are LNP but, maybe the Others will see a Crack that lets in the Light! Sorry blahblahblah I just couldn't help my self. To the Honourable Senator/Honourable MHR I have written to seek a response to the following Allegations of Corruption & Misuse of Public Monies from within the Federal Government. I ask that you read the five bullet points and Consider the Validity of the Allegations and consider seriously if the Awarding of Contracts should be a cause for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). and respond within twenty one working days to appraise myself of where you stand personally on these Very Disturbing Issues.
Please consider these facts.
(1) The Welfare Card programme does not produce savings for the government but adds another level of administrative bureaucracy and cost on top of the current welfare payments system. In fact, the new look Welfare Card, which is a revamp of the former Basics Card, costs upwards of $4,000 person to implement and manage and the previous Basics Card cost $6000 per person. That is, for every person compelled to use the card the Government will also pay Indue upward of $4,000 each. That’s $4,000 that could have been spent on that person directly or as a contribution toward the provision of services to communities with health, educational and employment needs or on reducing the alleged government debt. If every person receiving unemployment benefits were placed on the Welfare Card the cost to the tax payer of the administration of the card alone, not including the actual welfare payments made, would be approximately $3.2 billion more than the cost of the current welfare payment system. That money will be paid to Indue, or to any other private card provider or crony of the LNP Government that it wants to lavish with public funds, but not to those in need. That is $3.2 billion that could have been used to reduce the budget deficit or spent on health, education and work programmes for all Australians. If the recipients of other types of benefits, such as pensioners and family tax benefit recipients, are also compelled to participate in the card programme, then the cost to the taxpayer and Government coffers would be billions more again. Remember, these are additional administrative amounts on top of the welfare payments that need to be made to recipients and that these additional administrative amounts per person are paid to Indue as the manager and operator of the Welfare Card system and not as income support or on services to those who need it.
(2) While incurring these additional costs, the card programme does not displace any existing welfare costs to the Government or taxpayers because Centrelink and Department of Human Services staff, who are responsible for welfare payments, were retrenched en mass years before the Welfare Card was introduced. Despite having this reduced staff, the Department still managed to maintain welfare services and payments without the need for intervention by a private operator such as Indue. On that basis, the card programme is more costly than the current system it is intended to supersede and replace as it requires the Government to pay high per person administration fees to the private operator Indue without displacing any existing costs sustained by the Government. Rather than reducing the alleged budgetary deficit, the card programme in itself worsens the budget deficit and creates no savings for the government at all. With this in mind, it is now clear that the true purpose of the $4.5 billion amount that the LNP Centrelink ‘Robo-Debt’ claw back campaign is targeted to recover from welfare recipients is the cost of implementing the Welfare Card across the whole country to recipients of welfare of all forms and not just to the unemployed. The cost of implementing the card nationwide is more or less proportional to the estimated savings generated by the ‘Robo-Debt’ claw back. This clawback would enable the Department of Human Services to balance its departmental budget by offsetting the increased outgoing administrative costs of the Welfare Card paid to Indue with reductions in outgoing payments to welfare recipients. These administrative costs are funds from the Department of Human Services and welfare budget that were obtained from Government coffers for the purpose of providing income support to the people who need it and not for the purpose of passing those public funds on as profits and fees to private corporations and individuals with close connections to the LNP.
(3) Under the LNP, Government contracts are now being awarded on a ‘limited tender basis’ at a frequency greater than they have ever been in history. This enables the LNP to award Government contracts to their crony mates on ‘commercial in confidence’ terms, and, thus, with an immunity from freedom of information laws, who then donate some of the profits earned from those Government contracts back to the LNP as tax deductible donations. The multinational KPMG is a major beneficiary of public funds under Government contracts, a major donor to the LNP and is also involved in the Welfare Card programme. The latest Government contract to Indue was with the Department of Human Service for $850,000 worth of ‘benefit cards’ for the whole of 2017. This is an amount of money that could produce cards for all unemployment benefit recipients with some left over. The latest contract between the Department of Human Services and Indue was awarded on a ‘limited tender basis’ sometime before 1 January 2017, that is, before the trials for the card had concluded and been assessed. In fact, it was awarded without any tendering at all.
(4) The contract for the issuing and management of the card was awarded before the trials for the card programme’s operation were completed and before the merits and outcomes of the card programme were assessed. Hence, if the real objects and purposes of the welfare card programme were positive health and social outcomes as claimed, then the trials would necessarily need to have been completed and their health and social outcomes assessed before the recent contracts to Indue could be awarded. This is not what occurred. Rather, the contracts were awarded to Indue before the trials had even been completed, let alone before their outcomes were assessed. It is open to conclude from this that the Government contracts were going to be awarded to Indue regardless of whether the purported health and social outcomes and objectives of the card programme were achieved. This indicates that the positive health and social outcomes stated for the card programme are not, and could never have been, the actual purpose of the card programme nor the reasons why a Ministerial decision was made in late 2016 to award contracts to Indue for 2017.
(5) There is no evidence that the health and social outcomes claimed for the welfare card have been achieved. Despite touting cherry picked colloquial ‘evidence’ about declines in poker machine use and alcohol sales in areas where the card programme has been tested, reports of increases in other serious crimes in those areas, where robberies, break ‘n enters and assaults have increased by up to 200%, have been ignored and gone unreported as desperate people seek cash or valuables, such as jewellery and electrical goods that can be traded for cash, to make necessary purchases.
However, the Ministerial decision to award the contract to Indue is not excluded from review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). It may be possible to challenge the award of the contract to Indue under that Act on grounds of ‘unreasonableness’ and, perhaps, ‘bias’. The decision was ‘unreasonable’ on the basis that the trials were not completed or their outcomes assessed before the contract was awarded to Indue. This means that the decision to award any contract to Indue at the time it was awarded had no factual basis or evidence to support the alleged purpose for the card programme or, hence, to provide any reason to award a contract. That is, no reason existed or relevant facts regarding the appropriateness of the card programme were known by the decision maker when awarding the contract to Indue. On that basis, the Minister’s decision to award the contracts to Indue was ‘unreasonable’ at the time the Minister made it and, on that basis, that decision should be reversed. The decision was ‘bias’ because no open tender was used to award the contracts and because Indue is a donor of the Liberal Party and its members are LNP members or supporters. Hence, when awarding the contracts for the issue, implementation and management of the welfare card programme, the Ministerial decision-maker preferred Indue to other possible suppliers due to the association of Indue with the LNP, that is, the political party in which the Minister for Human Services, Allan Tudge, who made the decision to award the contract to Indue, is also, necessarily, a member. As is Larry Anthony one of the beneficiaries of these contracts.
This is not a proper use of Commonwealth revenue and the Australian people would not support such conduct. IT IS CORRUPTION DISGUISED AS PHILANTHROPY!
Thank you for your time in this matter, Yours Faithfully Bear (Elector for the Seat/State of .....)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 6:31:30 GMT 7
But an ICAC would give the power back to the people, as would online voting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 6:55:55 GMT 7
But an ICAC would give the power back to the people, as would online voting. So does Letter Writing .... see updated post!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 7:38:06 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Nov 9, 2017 9:09:08 GMT 7
just signed. easy as.
|
|
|
Post by mspurple on Nov 9, 2017 10:05:06 GMT 7
I am just about to head out to pick up my dog from the veterinary clinic, when I am back home I will sign it too.
|
|
|
Post by mspurple on Nov 9, 2017 12:48:57 GMT 7
I have signed. Would have been easy if the internet would behave.
|
|