Once your payment is in your A/C you own it!

[Deleted]

From Facebook:-This is the section of the Social Security Act that the words "subject to legislative amendment" circumvents.

It is the elehpant in the room LNP will NOT discuss in Senate and media has been 100% silent on.
Not a SINGLE question has been posed to LNP in two years on this issue.

In placing funds ordinarily earmarked for YOUR private bank account into Indue LTD's accounts, the LNP ensure your Social Security rights are usurped and your entitlements NEVER become legally 'yours'.

Your lawful income instead, belongs to Indue. The LNP are *literally* handing hundreds of millions of dollars in what they themselves are calling "free money" to an politically friendly private coporate that remains UNACCOUNTABLE to almost all industry codes or to the Senate.

Socialism for them..predatory capitialism for you.

#STOPTHECARD

(Via Opposing the Cashless Debit Card - New South Wales)

'Once a social security payment has been paid into a recipient's bank account it is no longer a social security payment under the Act. It becomes part of the recipient's funds'.

Ref. Guide to Social Security Law
Version 1.241 - Released 5 February 2018
8.4.3 Protection of Payment
guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/8/4/3

m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=564129083981910&id=275344262860395

[nomadic]

Mai khao jai bear? ? I have said for years that once it is in my bank it is my money. FULL STOP. But Poorlean for one doesn't agree.
can you please explain the following to this dill? In placing funds ordinarily earmarked for YOUR private bank account into Indue LTD's accounts, the LNP ensure your Social Security rights are usurped and your entitlements NEVER become legally 'yours'.

[Deleted]

In a nutshell nomadic the card is illegal.  There is no basis in DSS law for DHS to give  your payment to Indue! That's how I'm reading  it. In the comments of the article there is mention of needing a HR Lawyer on a pro bono basis or a political party taking it to the high court. There is also  talk of any saved money on the card over and above your regular payment belonging to Indue. Click on the Facebook link, read the comments and tell us what you think. Cheers bear

Legal basis for protection of payment
The SS(Admin)Act states that, subject to express legislative exemptions, social security payments are absolutely inalienable. This means that they cannot be sold, transferred to a third party, legally charged or be subject to bankruptcy proceedings. This gives legal force to the intention that payments are designed to provide income support. A recipient's right to receive a payment or benefit CANNOT be transferred to another person either by a voluntary act or by the operation of the law.
Although, under the Act, the Secretary may direct that a payment be made to another party, this would normally only occur with the consent of the recipient. This does not operate as alienation since the third party payment is made on behalf of the recipient. If the recipient does not have the capacity to consent, the Secretary may direct payment to a third party in the best interests of the recipient.

Example: The Secretary may direct that payments be made to a payment nominee at the request of the recipient.

Act reference: SS(Admin)Act section 60 Protection of social security payment, section 123A to section 123S Nominee arrangements

SSAct section 23(1)-'social security payment'

Policy reference: SS Guide 1.1.N.80 Nominee

Maintaining protection of payment
There are 3 circumstances in which, although a recipient does not directly receive their payment, they do NOT transfer their right to that payment. Those circumstances are when a payment is:

voluntarily directed by the recipient to a third party, though the payment is still used for the benefit of the recipient, OR
withheld by the Commonwealth to repay a debt (1.1.D.40) which the recipient owes to the Commonwealth, OR
subject to a garnishee order on the account to which the payment is made.
Each of these is explained in more detail in the rest of this topic.

Recipient voluntarily directing payment to another party
Generally, a recipient MUST agree before any payments can be paid to a third party. If the recipient does not have the legal capacity to agree (e.g. because of mental disability), the Secretary may direct payments be made to a third party, provided it is in the best interests of the recipient. This is usually done by appointing a nominee (1.1.N.80), using the relevant form.

Examples: A recipient may direct their payments to:

a payment nominee, OR
an institution, or ACO (1.1.A.200), through a group payment arrangement.
Act reference: SS(Admin)Act section 123A to section 123S Nominee arrangements

Commonwealth recovering debt
The Commonwealth has the right to recover:
social security debts under SSAct Part 5.2,
tax owed by the person to the Commonwealth, under section 218 of the ITAA, AND
other debts incurred under certain other specific legislative provisions.
Act reference: SSAct section 1231 Deductions from debtor's social security payment

SS(Admin)Act section 123A to section 123S Nominee arrangements, section 61 Deduction at request of recipient, section 238 Payments to Commissioner of Taxation or the Child Support Registrar

Garnishee orders
Once a social security payment has been paid into a recipient's bank account it is no longer a social security payment under the Act. It becomes part of the recipient's funds. A garnishee order on the account, equal to the amount of the recipient's payment, is NOT affected by the inalienability provisions. The Act, however, provides for a saved amount to which the garnishee order CANNOT apply. The saved amount is equal to the following:

the total amount of the recipient's payment, including advances, paid into the account in the 4 week period immediately before the order, MINUS
the total amount withdrawn from the account in the same period.
Act reference: SS(Admin)Act section 62 Effect of garnishee or attachment order

[nomadic]

Actually i did understand it. I just couldn't believe it. So needs people on the card to challenge it in court? Let's hope some lawyers out there will see to it. All part of a full royal commission i would imagine. If only the public knew.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2018 6:37:00 GMT 7 nomadic said:

Actually i did understand it. I just couldn't believe it. So needs people on the card to challenge it in court? Let's hope some lawyers out there will see to it. All part of a full royal commission i would imagine. If only the public knew.

There's a fairly large campaign going on from the Authors of the OP. They've written submissions and are asking all & sundry to write , call, generally make a fuss to local members etc., telling them that we're onto their shonky deal with Indue and we don't like it. Cheers bear.

[Deleted]

The liberals say its not our money its taxpayers and the taxpayers should tell us what we are allowed to buy with it and we should not be allowed to buy a beer or a lotto ticket because that's wasting taxpayers money, so why is it OK for me to buy an icecream or buy a ticket to the movies or junk food at Mcdonalds , aren't l also wasting taxpayer money buying those  things?