⚠💜🐦 A post to the wider community.Problems with Indue and the CDCT - cashless debit card trials.
We call the wider Community's attention to our following concerns:
Aside from the larger issue of the privatisation of the National Social Security payment *systems * via the outsourcing of these systems to the Indue Ltd corporation ( CDCT) and Serco corporation ( Telephone call centers) we draw the communities attention to the issue of the privatisation of Social Security *payments* themselves and the loss of legal authority over these payments that occurs when a person is placed onto the "Indue card trial".
We inform you, that by placing funds ordinarily earmarked for the private bank accounts of Social Security recipients into Indue Ltds private accounts, the Department is circumventing Social Security Laws intended to protect recipients from predatory trade practices. They have done this by making amendment changes to the Social Security (Admin) Act 1999, and have done this without adding any protections for forced trial participants from such practices.
These fundamental changes, ones that alter the very nature of ' who owns what' have not been debated in parliament or exposed in media nor has any effort to inform the public at large been made. This awareness is not yet 'common knowledge'. Yet these changes have already been made and exist within the current legislative framework. They are in place right now.
Peoples incomes are not simply being held outside of ability their control or access, legal ownership of the income itself is being transferred into the hands of a private corporate entity.
This is a ' big deal'.
We refer you to the Guide to Social Security Law Version 1.241, released 5th February 2018, and to Article 8.4.3 “Protection of Payment” therein which states:
“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”.
However, despite the existence of this law, the redirection of payments to Indue Ltd itself for third party ‘management’ means that these lawful entitlements no longer legally become the property of Social Security recipients at all under the CDC/CDCT legislation.
Instead, these funds are transferred to Indue Ltd accounts, therefore belong solely to Indue Ltd and thus the entire system of Social Security payments is effectively transformed into a system of Credit.
This issue has never been addressed by this Senate and we are compelled to ask, why?
We assert that transferring individual Social Security payments to this corporation is a breach of Article 8.4.3 “Protection of payment” and that the Department, are literally handing hundreds of millions and potentially multiple billions of dollars in what they are calling “free money” [ in reality, our taxes paid in lawful benefits ] to a politically friendly, unsecured corporate entity, that remains unaccountable to almost all industry codes and remains unaccountable to this Senate itself.
We find this usurping of the Social Security Laws that are specifically intended to protect recipients from just this form of predatory trade practice, and this action as a whole that completely strips legal ownership of Social Security payments from the hands of forced trial participants, is simply unconscionable.
We have sought an explanation and legal justification for this action from the Department. None has been forthcoming.
●●●
• We contend that the latest amendments made to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, will tacitly authorise an incremental nation wide roll-out of the Cashless Debit Card as a program deployment, before all pertinent data has been accumulated and assessed, and that this presents unacceptable social, financial and physical risks to people within target cohort.
• It is an uncontested fact that the CDCT regime engages and limits a range of human rights. We refer people to the following statement by the Parliamentary Joint Committee that the CDCT legislation must provide:
‘… existence of a legitimate objective must be identified clearly with supporting reasons and, generally, empirical data to demonstrate that [it is] important.’
And that:
‘To be capable of justifying a proposed limitation of human rights, a legitimate objective must address a pressing or substantial concern and not simply seek an outcome regarded as desirable or convenient. Additionally, a limitation must be rationally connected to, and a proportionate way to achieve, its legitimate objective in order to be justifiable in international human rights law.‘
We hold that the Cashless Debit Card legislation meets neither obligation.
We share our deep concern with many, that when combined with recent classification changes, the removal of existing stipulated trial end dates and midstream expansion efforts do and will undermine trial legitimacy, and will mean that any pretense of the CDCT being a dedicated investigative “trial” is being abandoned.
We uphold and support the Human Rights Commission submission to this Senate in November 2017 [3] 18 and 19, that states the current legislation fails to justify the infringements upon Human Rights, and so, it fails to meet provisions under the Act for any continuance much less any expansion.
●●●
• We reject unsupported media claims that the CDCT has been a “success” when abundant evidence exists including multiple submissions of the lived experiences of forced trial participants made to this Senate in 2017, that demonstrate unchecked and largely unacknowledged breaches of privacy, human and civil rights and consumer rights.
We hold that the Orima Research Evaluation results are in fact contrary to the reports own conclusions and to remarks contained within the Executive Summary.
• We assert that the Orima Wave 2 reports findings themselves demonstrate clearly that the return of essential funding to local services and more effective coordination of resources by these services, rather than the efficacy of imposed forced income management itself, has been the key factor in the few observable productive results reported within Orima Wave 2.
• We hold that the CDC is at root, a structure of socio-economic apartheid, that intentionally segregates in the majority, people who are not considered “at risk” within the “welfare class” from equality of access to the rights, privileges, protections and freedoms enjoyed under law by general society, without just cause.
We hold that this is in itself an act of collective punishment, and that any institutional or structural apartheid structure, intentionally created or not, is wholly wrong and immoral and works actively against the principles and values of the Australian way of life.
• We, along with the nations leading Drug and Alcohol advisors as spelled out in the 2015 Drug and Alcohol report, hold that issues of addiction and social violence are health and policing issues and are not a direct product of, or exclusive to, the receipt of centrelink payments.
We find that the presumption of causation being presented to the community by pro-card politically invested groups is born of social and media generated stereotypes and is not represented in related data. We hold that available data has been utilized as a pretext and marketing tactic by the LNP and their representatives within the Department in order to further the agenda of the CDC as a policy.
Further, we add that contrary to the views held by Keith Pitt MP and the Department, the reality of increasing numbers of people seeking assistance and support for addictions, gambling and drug/alcohol is not a negative outcome at all, rather, it is evidence of the success of media and social activism designed specifically to bring people into the community view so they can access help and support services when needed.
We hold that to use any data collected from that effort in such a manner that undermines participants human, civil, privacy and economic rights; or that excludes them from full and active participation in community as the CDCT does, is an inappropriate use of data and an abuse of power and position. It is manipulative and deceptive.
●●●
• We remind the Community that significant conflicts of interest remain regarding the corporation managing the CDCT payments systems and these have not been acknowledged or addressed by this Senate at all. [4]
Aside from ongoing concerns regarding the relationship of Larry Anthony [current National Party President] with the Indue LTD Corporation as one time CEO, there are issues relating to SAS Holdings, [ Larry Anthony CEO ] who until August 2018, were Indue Ltd’s primary industry lobbyist to government.
There are also some basic problems and issues that have arisen with Indue Ltd as facilitator of the card program itself that do require attention and addressing as well and to proceed with expansion while these matters are outstanding would be negligent and a significant breach of duty of care.
These include:
(a) The fact that Indue Ltd is not a bank, and as as shareholder based for-profit ADI, they are not able to provide the full range of banking protections or services to their clients let alone to place the complex issues of active Social Welfare above corporate profit making. They a re not held to the same standards as banks, nor regulated in the same manner as banks are.
(b) Indue Ltd is not a subscriber to the Centrelink Code of Operation.
(c) Indue Ltd is not a subscriber to any industry code of conduct, like the Code of Banking Practice or the Customer-owned Banking Code of Practice.
(d) Indue Ltd does not have any experience in retail banking.
(e) Indue Ltd does not have any experience in social welfare or working with people in poverty or in crisis situations.
(f) Indue Ltd is an unelected, non representative body acting as a government agent, yet they remain unaccountable to our Senate and have been granted an informal ( on the nod) exemption from existing consumer laws.
(g) Indue Ltd has already made significant errors with payment handling in the current trial zones that have created significant distress for forced trial participants. Indue Ltd has not been held accountable for any card decline issues.
(h) The LNP's intimate relationship with unelected, unqualified corporate entity Mr Andrew Forest and his charity Mindaroo regarding ongoing and related issues of Land Rights abuses and racial discrimination within CCDT targeted communities.
●●●
• We call the Communities attention to the issue of negative consumer impacts [4], and the reality that the Department have failed to address in any meaningful or respectful manner any report of distress being experienced by forced trial participants to date in any trial area; this, despite two prior Senate inquiries and the vocal and visible presentation of details of this duress and distress presented by submissions and petitions to ministers, councils, media, the Senate and to the general public.
We draw your attention to the fact that reported suicides, self injury, fiscal complaints and family hardships and the personal lived experience of negative impacts of the CDCT in and upon the lives of forced trial participants have been routinely negated, and dismissed by the LNP and the Department, often in the rudest, most disrespectful and vilifying manner.
This distress and evidence of significant hardship across all CDCT sites includes but is not limited to:
◦ Increase in successful suicides and over 474 cases of reported self injury that have not been addressed. No ongoing monitoring and reporting process is in place addressing this issue.
◦ Loss of income: increased bank fees and new $10 “inbound fees” that are being applied to participant emergency transfers.
◦ Inability to flee violence, DV.
◦ Inability to engage in every day cultural practices.
◦ Minimum spends at local shops impacting cash portion and quarantined portions of income.
◦ Indue LTD has not been investigating lost payments or late payments. People are unable to pay council rates.
◦ The acute distress of forced participants not being taken seriously by government representatives.
◦ Hunger strikes.
◦ Miscarriage
◦ Marriage break ups
◦ Homelessness
◦ Inability to access basic shopping services such as Woolworths and Coles online.
◦ The refusal of many people to activate cards leaving the most vulnerable in extreme and abject poverty, 'off grid' entirely.
◦ Entire communities in Ceduna and Goldfields were not consulted at all (example: Kambalda WA)
◦ Increased social and financial predatory behavior inflicted upon those on CDCT by other community members and visiting criminals including: rape, fiscal manipulation, card on selling, child rape and physical abuse, street assaults, theft, grafting by store owners.
◦ Increases in mental health distress.
◦ Increases in youth crime and disaffection.
◦ Impact of aggressive policing, move on orders, leading to the isolation of many communities and individuals within communities.
◦ The bullying, stalking, doxxing and active ‘trolling’ of anti-card dissenters by minsters of this Parliament, paid political activists, and certain allied members of the general public.
◦ Reports from participants of increasing inability to cope with simple budget management given the complexity of split incomes.
◦ Indue Ltd transfer restrictions and the reality of 'no joint access' on couples who must ‘financially divorce’ to continue to receive payments and pay bills, along with a plethora of other stress inducing issues being reported widely in media and in community forums by CDCT participants themselves.
◦ Experiences of the bullying and ‘strong arming’ of local shop owners, service groups and businesses by the Department in trial regions and targeted regions.
◦ Inconstancy: Indue LTD staff at shop fronts in trial locations saying one thing to CDCT participants and the Department saying another.
◦ Increases in Domestic Violence.
◦ Increased racism and racial attacks.
◦ Increases in crime.
◦ Increases in “3 evils” behaviors and alternative drug use.
◦ Loss of dignity and equality.
◦ Inability to purchase life saving medical equipment.
◦ Segregation/ongoing social exclusion from every day cash only family outings.
●●●
• We reaffirm to the Community that the Indue Ltd Cashless Debit card is not “just like any other visa debit card’ because:
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Can be used to purchase gift cards, digital currencies and motel stays. The CDC cannot.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Are not driving their users to suicide or to prostitute themselves for access to cash. The CDC is.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not subject the card user to social stigma, demeaning or dehumanising abuse from store keepers or the general public. The CDC does.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Can be used to make purchase on Gumtree, Amazon, Kindle, Ebay, Pay Pal. The CDC cannot.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not remove or impinge upon a card users Banking/Economic/Consumer Rights or impinge upon a users Human Rights, Privacy and Civil rights. The CDC does.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Have fraud, charge back and investigation/redress protections that apply to all card users equally. The CDC does not.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not require you to be subject to third party partitioning of your income, that restricts spending transfers and payments to nominated ‘categories’ you did not choose for yourself. The CDC does.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Cannot be forced onto you by coercion and duress. The CDC can and is.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not block your access to cash advances and freedom of bank transfers between accounts. The CDC does.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not undermine your life long credit rating, limit banking choices and housing opportunities. The CDC does.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not require card users to ask for permission from the State, to spend, transfer or redirect personal income. The CDC does.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Are not an instrument of ideology or government policy. The CDC is.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not remove a card users political agency in their community. The CDC does.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not morally judge or presume a card users fiscal, physical, social or moral competency. The CDC does.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not impinge upon a person’s right to autonomy. The CDC does.
◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not usurp legal ownership of your income. The CDC does.
These 28 examples, of over 150 plus similar examples available, sufficiently demonstrate that there are indeed substantial practical, ethical and functional differences between the CDC and “a regular visa debit card” the most disturbing of which, is the simple fact that the CDC financially segregates Australian tax paying citizens from their communities and the rights held by every other Australian citizen.
●●●
The Say No Seven Community recommends;
• As this legislation does not meet Human Rights standards and has been sufficiently proven to be an ineffective mechanism in meeting its stated objectives, we recommend that all CDC trials be halted immediately and forced participants returned to regular payments systems.
• That if it must remain in any form, the CDC transition to a voluntary program offered on an ‘opt in’ basis until legislation can be formally repealed.
• That forced third party income management of any kind, should be only imposed upon a person when that person has undertaken an individual assessment, has consented, or is clearly shown to be unable to manage their income or in need of direct intervention by a court of law. Even then, with severe Senate oversight, maximum duration/sunset clauses and with the offering of wrap around individually tailored services.
• That compensation be paid to forced trial participants under the current CDCT program for economic losses and personal suffering including an inquiry into CDC related suicides.
• That all sums earmarked for CDCT and CDC expansion be directed instead to rebuilding the infrastructure of the social services networks in communities; for engagement program development; building of Youth centers and diversion programs; anti-poverty programs; for social housing and social inclusion groups, and to those registered social welfare and health agencies specialising in the aid of persons with addiction problems and those in need of more intensive employment support.
In conclusion, the Indue Ltd Cashless Debit Card cannot and does not address individual or wider structural social and economic problems, including those underlying and causing, addiction, ‘welfare dependency’, under and unemployment, violence and sexual abuse impacting our communities and children today. In any authentic cost/benefit evaluation, the CDC falls desperately short of meeting any reasonable expectation of fairness, efficacy and efficiency.
The Say No seven community supports and affirms the 2017 submission to the Senate by the St Vincent de Paul Society [7], an excerpt of which states:
“Instead of paternalistic and ideologically driven measures such as income management, we need a comprehensive set of policies that are grounded in evidence of what works, and that tackle the underlying causes of poverty and inequality.”
We too insist that:
“…the considerable resources expended on the cashless welfare card and other paternalistic measures could be better spent on improving the adequacy of income support payments, investing in education and job creation and funding appropriate and effective services for struggling individuals and families.”
Thank you for your time.
The Say No Seven Community
Src: The above is an edited excerpt derived from the SNS community submission to senate inquiries 2017, 18, 19
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2535819970021355&id=1415019052101458