|
Post by nomadic on Mar 7, 2020 8:35:12 GMT 7
Hey, as before, I buy my mates groceries with the card and he buys the equivalent amount of booze for me. Not just flawed but the purest of human evil. But either it is rejected and/or Adolph loses the next election or it must be WW3. And i really don't care anymore. If they want to kill and torture people then it really is needed just like all the other historical despots. what does scares me is that like Hitler they also have many supporters who have been totally brain washed by the just as evil media.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Mar 27, 2020 8:09:55 GMT 7
Senator Anne Ruston temporarily suspends putting new Job Seekers on the Cashless Welfare Card.
This is purely so tens of thousands of people potentially becoming unemployed in trial regions won’t suddenly realise what an atrocity this card is and start fighting back against it.
The LNP don’t want people finding out their lies about the cashless welfare card income management scheme until it’s too late. *Please note the word ‘temporary’ though. After six months any new people on Centrelink benefits can still be forced onto the cashless welfare card. 🌿#ACTION_ALERT.
Anne Ruston's phone number: 0262777560. (Personally, I'd say good luck with that.)Today Anne needs to hear from as many people as possible to end the Cashless Welfare Card forced income management scheme trials for ALL Australians. Please inform yourself: The income management scheme is advertised as being a way to stop people using social security benefits/pensions on alcohol, gambling products and drugs, but not to worry as everything else is business as usual. Nothing could be further from the truth. It restricts so much more than that, it is not just like an ordinary debit card in any other way. Stripping away people’s right to manage their own finances, making them second-class citizens, having to endure abuse and stigmatisation, being automatically branded as drug/alcohol abusers, being financially worse off due to extra fees and charges for using the card, plus penalties for when Indue fail to pay bills set up for direct debit is all OK by you? Being denied opportunities to make ends meet by accessing cheaper options via markets, garage sales, eBay, buy/sell groups, many online stores, cash in hand sales/repairs etc, is OK by you? Many people don’t seem to realise that eBay, Gumtree, a large proportion of on-line businesses as well as many physical stores selling ordinary goods, plus local eating and entertainment places are on ‘Indue’s block list as you could potentially buy alcohol from them. Other excluded businesses have just not bothered to apply to be on Indue’s ‘Approved Merchants’ list. A number have even deliberately decided not to be on it in order to exclude people on Centrelink benefits from accessing their services. Some of these include motels and caravan parks. This has had devastating consequences for some people fleeing domestic violence situations. It is also pure discrimination. Having to justify to Indue why you should be allowed to spend money (and how much) on items like e.g., specialty bras, some trade services, text books, spare parts, specialised medical equipment needs, school excursions, second hand cars, someone to mow your lawn, attending a school fete, cash needed for transport on regional buses, buying second-hand uniforms, emergency replacement of a second hand fridge or washing machine, emergency car repairs, etc (many being situations where cash is generally asked for) then having to wait days for approval (or not) after submitting an affidavit, photos and a letter that the vendor has to supply, all that is still okay by you? Having your financial/credit rating destroyed by Indue whenever they fail to pay your rent or bills in time or fail to process them at all, is okay by you? Potentially becoming homeless because of this, having your rental history destroyed and real estate agents blacklisting you for non or late rental payments, and/or at the very least, once again continually incurring financial penalties and extra fees and charges is all okay by you? All in the name of ‘punishing’ those few who may ‘waste’ some of their social security benefit on alcohol or drugs, for example. Everyone on any kind of social security payment (not just job seekers but also carers, people on the Disability Support Pension, students, single parents, struggling farmers, fledgling small businesses owners, veterans etc, all now just have to put up with this ‘inconvenience’ for the sake of the common good? m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2638537326416285&id=1415019052101458
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on May 9, 2020 6:19:24 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by bear on May 9, 2020 7:24:44 GMT 7
In future please make sure articles are accessible, otherwise; what's the point. We already know their agenda. Thanks for your cooperation.
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on May 9, 2020 14:17:02 GMT 7
Not had a GROWL for yonks. So Ruston you get it once again you despicable thing. GROWL! A huge rise and no card for the covid unemployed but once it is over it will be torture as usual.
|
|
|
Post by agonydan on May 9, 2020 15:13:12 GMT 7
If they push this onto OAP and DSP this will be the end of the Morrison government.
|
|
|
Post by blahblahblah on May 10, 2020 6:34:30 GMT 7
Unfortunately I recall hearing about the end of the Morrison government before...
|
|
|
Post by bear on May 10, 2020 6:53:57 GMT 7
Unfortunately I recall hearing about the end of the Morrison government before... ......me too
|
|
|
Post by paddy on May 10, 2020 6:56:40 GMT 7
It could be more likely given the card pause for newer entrants won't be forever. They too will go on the card in a hypothetical national rollout.
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on May 10, 2020 7:10:14 GMT 7
I believe they assume all the recently unemployed will all go back to work when virus is over. So they will have had more to live on and no card and will be happy with that situation. "What a great guy Morrison is" But for the old unemployed it will be back to poverty and card. Business as usual. It is 100% all about getting votes and it seems to be working after they were dead in the ground before the virus. They may even start favorites in next election. Then if they win you aint seen nothing yet.
|
|
|
Post by paddy on May 10, 2020 7:57:22 GMT 7
It's a reckless assumption to make. The economy will be damaged by this for years. These people won't just be able to stroll back into their previous jobs or new jobs like it's easy.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jun 4, 2020 6:28:40 GMT 7
‘ Community’ and the Cashless Debit Card in the Hinkler Region
On 29 January 2019 the Federal Government commenced a trial of the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) in the Hinkler region, which includes Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. The broad objectives of the trial are to decrease substance abuse and gambling, as well as promote ‘socially responsible behaviour’. The Explanatory Memorandum for the Billintroducing the CDC in the Hinkler region emphasised the call of ‘community stakeholders’ for the card to address ‘high youth unemployment and intergenerational welfare dependence as well as the high use of alcohol, drugs and gambling.’
Despite government rhetoric of a community backed CDC trial in the Hinkler region, empirical evidence presents a more complex picture of stakeholder perspectives. In the recently released government commissioned qualitative report on the CDC in the Hinkler region, undertaken by the Future of Employment and Skills Research Centre (FESRC) at the University of Adelaide, a more nuanced view of Hinkler stakeholders emerges. This report is based on 74 stakeholder interviews and 66 interviews with people who were or were about to be put on the card, with many interviewees reporting ‘that they were opposed to the trial of the CDC.’ Importantly, the most frequently mentioned problems were about the limited ‘labour market’ and ‘lack of employment opportunities’ within the Hinkler region. This qualitative report shows that while some stakeholders wanted the CDC in their community, others were very much opposed to the introduction of the card. The views highlighted in the report show that there were sensible reasons why many stakeholders were concerned about the CDC. Those opposed to the CDC considered that the card would be socially divisive, would fail to address the underlying causes of substance abuse for people with addiction issues, and would do nothing to generate desperately needed jobs in the region. The qualitative report also reflects important cardholder concerns about increased shame and stigma brought about because of the CDC program, with many cardholders reporting ‘that they were reluctant to use their card as they feared being looked down upon or’ targeted with ‘negative comments by retail and hospitality staff, and also their fellow customers.’ For numerous CDC holders, their worst fears on this front have been realised, as confirmed by other independent academic research. The Federal Government’s updated Bundaberg and Hervey Bay CDC website states that the CDC was introduced because of ‘calls for the card from key stakeholders in the region to address social issues such as high youth unemployment and intergenerational welfare dependence’ (emphasis added). This tweak raises further questions. Who was considered to be a ‘key’ stakeholder? Which stakeholder views were deemed irrelevant and why? How did the government decide which stakeholder voices to listen to and which to ignore in their consultation process? Does ‘key’ stakeholder merely correlate with ‘elite’ stakeholder? The diverse stakeholder perspectives captured in the FESRC qualitative report suggest that there was strenuous support by some and equally rigorous opposition by others to the introduction of the CDC. Interviews with CDC holders undertaken as part of independent academic research indicate a lack of consultation with those most likely to be directly affected by the program. Framing the introduction of the CDC as a response to community calls for the card has always been problematic, as it reflects homogenising views of community cohesion that square poorly with the complexities of social stratification operating within trial sites. In her seminal work Justice and the Politics of Difference, Iris Marion Young (2011: 227) explains that ‘the ideal of community denies and represses social difference, the fact that the polity cannot be thought of as a unity in which all participants share a common experience and common values.’ In short, the language of ‘community’ can obfuscate the experience of exclusion and domination. My field work in the Hinkler region, undertaken as part of the ARC Discovery Project Conditional Welfare: A Comparative Case Study of Income Management Policies(DP180101252), confirmed that Hinkler is a diverse rather than homogenous community. Social stratification within Hinkler was evident during multiple field work trips to the region, where I observed incidents reflecting social tension about the CDC program. For example, during CDC protests in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay I observed some passers by shout from their cars at protestors: ‘get a job you bludgers!’ The tragic irony was that many of these people in receipt of social security who were protesting against the CDC were already employed – they were under-employed rather than unemployed. They were not unwilling to work but were experiencing a shortage of adequately paid employment opportunities in the region. Nevertheless, their status as government income support recipients attracted criticism from some segments of the community. During my Hinkler field work, some elite stakeholders who wanted the CDC introduced evidently saw themselves as part of a cohort of ‘normal’ community members, in contrast to those in need of social security payments. The latter were described as living an entitled existence in defiance of community norms, as the following stakeholder interview highlights: Facilitator: What do you think the community thinks about people who are subjected to the cashless debit card? Interviewee: Most people who I deal with, hang out with et cetera, think that people should get out and have a go. I think the age of entitlement is really pissing a lot of us normal people off; the real people, I guess. If that makes sense. Facilitator: Mm hm. Interviewee: I think the silent majority will think that it should go further. I think the silent majority think that there should be protesting, and I think the silent majority wants more accountability with those who are on welfare. This elite stakeholder interview is revealing. It evidences a perplexing belief that it is possible to ascertain precisely what the ‘silent majority’ think – despite their silence. It also ascribes a positive value to homogeneity within the community, reflected in the reference to ‘us normal people’. The picture of normality portrayed in this account is one of reliance on paid employment, with those experiencing greater socio-economic security through sufficient paid employment described as ‘the real people’. Yet adequately paid secure employment is increasingly scarce. So where does this leave people subject to the CDC? They are to be constrained under the CDC indefinitely, even if this creates significant problems for them in terms of basic bill payment, because obtaining an exit from the CDC is proving difficult for the majority of applicants. Although there is no evidence that the CDC achieves the government’s expressed aims when applied across broad social security cohorts, and can in fact cause further harm to numerous participants, Minister for Families and Social Services Anne Ruston announcedthat all CDC trials would be extended until 31 December 2020. However, the opportunity cost of funding the CDC is significant. Arguably these funds would be better deployed in generating jobs for those experiencing unemployment, under-employment, and socio-economic stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in providing a dignity promoting social security system. If ever there was an opportune time to start re-thinking perceptions of normality it is now. by Dr Shelley Bielefeld news.griffith.edu.au/2020/06/02/community-and-the-cashless-debit-card-in-the-hinkler-region/
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 4, 2020 7:18:28 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jul 4, 2020 7:22:06 GMT 7
So it will never happen?
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 4, 2020 7:25:08 GMT 7
If the info is correct and it does happen.....think Robodebt. They'll know it's illegal if they don't already but will push it until some law firm checks into and takes it up and them on.....
|
|