|
Post by prodius1 on Oct 9, 2020 13:37:18 GMT 7
It's little Johnnie Howard on steroids and on repeat; the second stage of the intervention. White Australians can ignore it like they did last time or do something about it this time; but if they let this happen, they will not only be openly complicit in the inherent racism running rampant in the country, they will deserve everything they get far into the future!! Bear They will get what they deserve. You can be assured of that
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Oct 9, 2020 14:50:48 GMT 7
It's little Johnnie Howard on steroids and on repeat; the second stage of the intervention. White Australians can ignore it like they did last time or do something about it this time; but if they let this happen, they will not only be openly complicit in the inherent racism running rampant in the country, they will deserve everything they get far into the future!! Bear They will get what they deserve. You can be assured of that By get what they deserve ! do you mean lose the election and have to retire to live the rest of their lives in luxury off a $300,000 taxpayer pension. Thats the worst that can happen to them
|
|
|
Post by prodius1 on Oct 9, 2020 15:32:18 GMT 7
Justice has to prevail. They cannot continue on what they are doing. It's been happening worldwide. I think next month will tell what happens in the future with the US election. We will see.
|
|
|
Post by bunyip on Oct 10, 2020 2:23:40 GMT 7
Justice has to prevail. They cannot continue on what they are doing. It's been happening worldwide. I think next month will tell what happens in the future with the US election. We will see. You mena the people rise up and overthrow the corrupt unfair system , It wont, especially in Australia , most people just put up with it and do nothing, the rich and powerful control the army and police to put down any rebellion. Theres no democracy in Australia because its either labor or liberal and both have the same policies and all the major things, Labor and liberal are like Woolworths and COles not much difference
|
|
|
Post by bear on Oct 10, 2020 9:02:57 GMT 7
Religious profit: Expanding the cashless welfare card ties in with Morrison’s beliefs
The philosophy of the cashless welfare card is the perfect marriage of neoliberal ideology and evangelical Christianity, both of which pathologise, criminalise and individualise poverty as a lifestyle choice.The concept of the Cashless Debit Card, known as the “Indue” card after the company that oversees its administration, was brought to us by the obsessive efforts of mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest who decided that the solution to what he perceived as the “welfare dependency” of Indigenous Australians was income management. The Australian government agreed with him and in 2014 legislation to implement the card in selected communities for a trial period passed federal parliament. The stated purpose of the card was to prevent Centrelink recipients spending money on drugs, alcohol and gambling. However, whether you engage in those activities or not is irrelevant: if you live in a trial site, eighty per cent of your government payment is quarantined and you are permitted access to only twenty per cent of your money as cash. There are now four trial sites: Ceduna in South Australia, East Kimberley, the West Australian towns of Kununurra and Wyndham, and most recently, the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region of Queensland. The so-called “trials” are now entering their fourth year, and in 2018 were extended into June 2021, despite there being little satisfactory data available on their success. While the trials now include non-Indigenous groups, they are still the majority of cardholders. In 2019 the LNP government decided to extend the Indue card to every person already on income management in the Northern Territory from January 2020, by moving those already using the marginally less onerous BasicsCard onto Indue. There is considerable chatter on social media that the government’s endgame is to extend the card to aged pensioners and veterans, as well as everyone on Newstart, and that the roll-out will be national. Legislation is already in place for this roll-out. Indue receives some $10,000 per annum per person from the government, for what is claimed to be “administrative costs.” The demeaning assumption by the privileged that people living in poverty are incapable of managing meagre government handouts and so must be infantalised, is but one aspect of this class war. Another paternalistic assumption is that anyone in receipt of government assistance is a “welfare cheat” or a “dole bludger,” and their spending habits must, therefore, be surveilled and controlled in an effort to protect “worthy” taxpayers from exploitation. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in a visit to the Yalata community, described the card as an exercise in “practical love”, a variation on the concept of “hard love” once advocated as a means of dealing with people addicted to substances. The implication that the poor are morally inadequate while the wealthy are, solely by virtue of their wealth, morally superior, nicely intersects with the beliefs of Pentecostal Christian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s prosperity theology, which understands God’s love and favour to be primarily expressed in wealth and material comforts. If you are poor, God doesn’t love you, and you haven’t loved him enough either. The philosophy of the Indue card is the perfect marriage of neoliberal ideology and evangelical Christianity, both of which pathologise, criminalise and individualise poverty as a lifestyle choice, with nary a thought for underlying structural causes. Poverty becomes a question of character, rather than a consequence of capitalist social organisation. The card is stigmatising. Whenever you produce it to buy food, for example, everyone who sees it is aware that you’re being managed as if you have a problem with gambling, alcohol or drug consumption, all addictions that are concealable if you’re middle or upper class, but highly visible if you’re poor and receiving income support. The card is punitive. It is intended to be, at the very least, a powerful and humiliating reproach to people who receive government assistance. The shame it evokes only demonises Centrelink recipients. If the card is rolled out to everyone on income assistance, the division of society into the comfortable worthy and undeserving unworthy will be stark. It is a profoundly troubling backward step to a time when poverty was widely held to be a moral failing. At the same time, Indue receives some $10,000 per annum per person from the government, for what is claimed to be “administrative costs.” Were the card to be rolled out to every recipient of Centrelink assistance, including all pensioners and veterans, Indue earnings would be considerable, and the cost to the government equally considerable. It is reasonable to question whether these funds could not be better spent in disadvantaged communities, rather than channelled to Indue Ltd and its shareholders. Then there are the National Party connections with the company. Former National Party MP and Party President, Larry Anthony, was deputy chairman of Indue until 2013. Nationals MPs are pushing for the widespread roll-out of the card, as are Liberals. The ALP appears, at first blush, to be more reluctant to both continue and broaden the card’s distribution, however, we are fast approaching the point where it is becoming necessary for Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese to clarify his party’s stance on the issue. This piece was originally published on The Big Smoke. You can find them on Facebook theaimn.com/religious-profit-expanding-the-cashless-welfare-card-ties-in-with-morrisons-beliefs/?fbclid=IwAR0M3qte7hEGC8rQ7gcG_iU-szgLS5lnR0UNEp0Pv3y-B-LYubZfX8vyt8A
|
|
|
Post by itsmylife08 on Oct 11, 2020 21:26:03 GMT 7
I can't see people overseas being sent the card. Will we be grandfathered, will we be sent one if we go back for a holiday?........so in answer to your question; who would know, not me, that's for sure. Personally, I doubt there's even been any consideration given to those of us living overseas because in their minds all who receive benefits must be residents; so, unfortunately, I think it's just a wait and see for the moment. Cheers bear. I concur with you bear, it's a case of wait and see what they get up to next, the key is as you said we all must be residents to receive benefits it certainly is a worry, none of them have any scruples. I've been trying to deal with another Government Department tonight online what an absolute pack of drongo's we've got. I had to give up my nerves were getting frayed, I'm on the rocket fuel now because of them grrrrrrr Cheers Itsa
|
|
|
Post by bear on Oct 12, 2020 7:16:20 GMT 7
If that's what happens itsmylife08, don't activate it. Elsewhere there are posts explaining how "activation" is you giving your tacit approval which you have to give before Indue has total control over your payment. Something to bear in mind......oh and have plenty of holiday money; because getting off an activated card will be next to impossible and an activated card will be worthless OS. Cheers bear
|
|
|
Post by bear on Oct 12, 2020 7:39:43 GMT 7
"Tyrannical and Unfair": Concern over move to make CDC permanent.
Government opts to enshrine cashless debit card, or CDC, system for welfare recipients
About 12,000 Australians are in the cashless welfare card program but that figure could soon rise.(ABC Goldfields: Isabel Moussalli)
Welfare recipients forced into a trial that saw them allocated cashless debit cards (CDCs) designed to curb gambling, drug and alcohol abuse could soon be stuck on the program permanently.This week's Federal Budget allocated an undisclosed amount to make the CDC trials ongoing, and two days later a bill was introduced to the lower house. The Senate is expected to vote on it by Christmas, while an inquiry is accepting public submissions until October 23. What do the changes mean?
Under the scheme, the majority of a person's Centrelink payment goes directly onto an 'Indue' card, designed to restrict their spending. Since 2016, the card has been trialled in the East Kimberley (WA), the Goldfields (WA), Ceduna (SA) and the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region (QLD). The outback city of Kalgoorlie in the Goldfields region became a CDC trial site in 2018.(ABC Goldfields: Rhiannon Stevens) This bill would make the four trial sites permanent and introduce the CDC to about 25,000 people in the Northern Territory and Cape York. What was the response to the news?Social Services Minister Anne Ruston said the Government was confident the CDC had a positive impact on both participants and the broader community. But many groups were quick to condemn news of an expansion, including the Australian Council of Social Services and Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT. In the East Kimberley, MG Corporation executive chairman Lawford Benning supported the rollout in 2016. But he has since withdrawn his support, saying the program has yet to deliver positive social outcomes, and that promised wrap-around support services hadn't eventuated. Social Services Minister Anne Ruston says the CDC supports vulnerable welfare recipients to improve their financial literacy.(ABC News: Nick Haggarty) He said local leaders weren't consulted about moves to make the card permanent. "We all want to be equally consulted or have that opportunity to play a part in making our community safe…this got sprung upon us," he said. "I've learned now and I believe it is a punitive model that is enforced, I believe, on vulnerable people." But Wunan Foundation executive chairman Ian Trust, who has long been an advocate for the card, said he wasn't concerned about a permanent program. "My view is that the cash welfare system is basically past its use by date," he said. "It's time we come up with something that's a bit more innovative about how we try and get people to move off this safety net into real employment, and in a lot of cases acquiring a better lifestyle." Wunan Foundation chairman Ian Trust is standing by the cashless welfare card.(ABC Rural: Tom Edwards) He said there needed to be more incentives for people to take up short-term work, like fruit picking, so they could transition off welfare and into employment. "The Aboriginal community here in the Kimberley, we've been on welfare for 50 years — cash handouts — how has that empowered us? It's taken us nowhere." I lost my job during the pandemic. Will I be added to the CDC?
In March, the Federal Government paused the process of adding new participants, while the scheme continued for those registered before the pandemic. Greens Senator Rachel Siewart, who has long opposed the CDC, said it needed to be explained whether the pause would continue because "it is highly likely that people newly on income support will now be put on the card". Ms Ruston told the ABC "the pause on new participants remains in place", and would not explain when it would be lifted. Can you leave the program?You can if you meet the criteria. But it's a lengthy process. There's an exemption for those whose mental or physical health is at risk, and another exemption if you can demonstrate responsible management of your affairs, including finances. The latest government data from September shows 502 exemption applications were approved and 730 were rejected, while 329 people were still waiting to be assessed. For Kalgoorlie carer Danny Ulrich, it took about eight months to leave the "tyrannical and unfair" trial. Former police officer Danny Ulrich was placed on the card because he was a carer for his disabled brother.(ABC Goldfields: Rhiannon Stevens) "From personal experience, leaving it is not as easy as people think," he said. Under the new bill, people who've been approved to leave the scheme could be forced back on it if authorities no longer believe they're managing their financial affairs. It's something that deeply concerns Mr Ulrich, who says he's repeatedly asked why his CDC online account has remained open despite him leaving the program in February. What happened to the University of Adelaide study?After a botched attempt to assess the first trial sites, the University of Adelaide was hired to evaluate the East Kimberley, Ceduna and Goldfields trials. The evaluation was expected to be delivered late last year. Ms Ruston said researchers needed more time due to COVID-19 delays and a high number of survey responses. But in an interview with the ABC last month, O'Connor MP Rick Wilson said he believed the release of the report was "imminent". Mr Wilson and Indigenous Australians Minister Ken Wyatt went on to say they didn't need the study to know the card should continue. "I believe [the study] is quite positive, but that will have no bearing on effectively the legislation passing the Parliament, they are two separate issues," Mr Wilson said. Mr Wyatt said there was community evidence in trial sites of a reduction in alcohol abuse, a reduction in physical assaults and improvements for school students. www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-11/centrelink-cashless-welfare-card-how-to-christmas-shopping/12751038
|
|
|
Post by will on Oct 12, 2020 9:30:53 GMT 7
Hi all, was just wondering if a DSPer with UP residing overseas can be put on this indue card? Or is it only for people on Newstart payment? Just concerned because where i'm living all transactions are pretty much done by cash. Cheers JJJ If you are overseas on UP i cant see that working.I would think we will be grandfathered. Just another reason not to go back.
|
|
|
Post by Trevros on Oct 12, 2020 11:21:37 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by bear on Oct 20, 2020 8:56:46 GMT 7
Cashless debit card program is robbing people of their agency
UNFAIR: Simply dictating how people on welfare can spend their money is not fixing the problem.
This week is Anti-Poverty Week, and it is fitting in this political climate that we should again find ourselves talking about the cashless debit card. The government's Social Security Guide states that the aim of the cashless debit card trial starting in 2016 is, "to help stabilise the finances and lives of vulnerable families, ensure welfare payments are used as intended, encourage socially responsible behaviour, and reduce money available for alcohol and gambling in an effort to reduce social dysfunction where it exists in some communities."
This card quarantines 80 per cent of a welfare recipient's benefit payment and 100 per cent of lump sum payments in a restricted bank account with a debit card that does not allow cash withdrawals or the purchase of products from stores that sell alcohol or gambling products. The trial has been rolled out across the Ceduna, East Kimberley, Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions. Let's look at the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region as a snapshot. Perhaps the most shocking figures in the government-commissioned University of Adelaide's baseline report into the CDC Trial, released in May 2020, is that 48 per cent of the residents in the Hinkler electorate are classed in the lowest group (decile) of the index of relative socio-economic disadvantage (ISRD) and 78 per cent of the Hinkler residents are in the three most disadvantaged deciles. Furthermore, the education level of the population aged 15 and over is substantially lower than Queensland as a whole with 40.8 per cent not completing year 12 (compared to 28.4 per cent of Queensland), despite student attendance rates being stable and quite comparable to Queensland averages. The Queensland government recognised the need for a co-ordinated effort to create jobs in the Bundaberg area back in 2017. But despite the $10.7 million state government grant to Bundaberg council, there was only a temporary boost to employment in the corresponding quarter. Furthermore, the fact the economic profile of Bundaberg, for example demonstrates an increase in unemployment since June 2019 - after the CDC's implementation - suggests that the card is not as effective as the government claims in "incentivising" people into work. Clearly, the issue is more complex than exerting control over how people spend money. We all know the CDC is not a seamless program - there are families who have lost their rental properties due to CDC issues with rent payment, being unable to buy groceries or participate in the cash community effectively. This is not including the mental and emotional impact of being "marked" as apparently untrustworthy of taking care of yourself. Hinkler MP Keith Pitt backed Prime Minister Scott Morrison's claims that the boosted JobSeeker unemployment benefit during this time of crisis can act as a disincentive to seeking low-paid work, according to Financial Review in July of this year. I find it staggering that the focus here is on the "problem with" allowing people who have fallen on difficult times to live with their noses above the poverty line and not the fact that there aren't enough sustainable jobs available to provide people with the "step up" the government expects of its people. The responsibility of unemployment always burdens the shoulders of those experiencing it. It is our government and commercial sector that are in a position of power to create the jobs so desperately needed: we cannot blame people for needing a salary they can live off. In Hinkler, the average salary is $32,000 a year, a fraction above the initial boosted JobSeeker payment - perhaps the problem isn't that JobSeeker was too high, it's that "decent work" opportunities in this area are insufficient. One thing I know for sure: quarantining 80 per cent of a welfare recipient's payments isn't going to reduce socio-economic disadvantage. At best, it's a Band-Aid; at worst, it destroys individuals' sense of agency. Rolled out across everyone in these regions, it is based on the presumption that those receiving payments are incapable of managing their own finances, underpinned by stereotypes that have been proven to be inaccurate. Shockingly, Indigenous Minister Ken Wyatt and O'Connor MP Rick Wilson said the qualitative study from the University of Adelaide we are still waiting to be released will have "no bearing" on effectively passing the legislation. It appears the government has made up its mind regardless of the data. We've been quarantined enough this year. www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6963942/cashless-debit-card-program-is-robbing-people-of-their-agency/?fbclid=IwAR3-h2gl4ID_rMNYqnOaR5DUDgCBFXN3J-s3TfXYmYBU6I-fn7KP89BEoPE Cashless Debit Card labelled the ‘new intervention’
Indigenous organisations are opposing a Bill seeking to enforce permanent compulsory income management through the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) scheme.
Currently, the CDC is being trialled across four sites—Ceduna in South Australia, the East Kimberley and Goldfield regions in Western Australia, and Hervey Bay in Queensland. The Bill, introduced to Federal Parliament last Friday, would see these communities transfer onto a permanent CDC program.
The Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory (APO NT) voiced their opposition. “We did not ask for the card, yet 22,000 of us will be affected if the card is imposed on NT income recipients,” said APO NT spokesperson, John Paterson. “The Bill is a new Intervention. It will perpetuate the torment of our powerlessness. It denies our basic freedom to control our lives. It locks the many of us who live below the poverty line out of the cash economy and undermines our small businesses that rely on cash payments.” The Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation (ALPA) joined APO NT in frustration, recognising that of the 22,000 people the transition will affect, 75 per cent are Indigenous. They said the Bill undermines the recent Closing the Gap restructure. “It is a new Bill, there has been no consultation on it whatsoever … it is going to have a very long-term impact on a lot of people and a lot of communities,” said Liam Flanagan, ALPA General Manager of Community Service. “THE CREDIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT IS INCREDIBLY … LOW WHEN THEY SAY ONE THING AND DO THE IMMEDIATE OPPOSITE.” “The entire assumption of this policy is that every single person in a remote Indigenous community in the Northern Territory has drug problems, has gambling problems, participates in domestic violence. It is a horrific categorisation and it is not reflective at all of reality.” Flanagan said the level of funding administered to the CDC scheme could be redirected to address issues such as access to housing, healthcare and education. “The issue that we are having time and time again is that Government want a quick, silver-bullet solution and they only look at the symptoms. They don’t look at the causes of what is happening,” he said. “It is not out of reach for the Government to put significant investment in place that would over the next five years take a lot of these underlying issues that have been there for generations off the table.” Greens Senator for Western Australia, Rachel Siewert, also voiced her opposition to the proposed Bill. She was joined by others who voiced their concerns on Twitter. A spokesperson for Social Services Minister Anne Ruston said “the Government is confident that welfare quarantining measures, which have been in place in various forms since 2007, have positive impact on participants and the broader community”. “Income Management is already an ongoing program in the Northern Territory. This change is not an expansion to new participants or communities, it is a transition to an improved card and user experience for those currently on Income Management,” said the spokesperson. Over $17 million has been allocated to targeted support services which will assist participants in transitioning in the Territory and Queensland. nit.com.au/cashless-debit-card-labelled-the-new-intervention/
|
|
|
Post by bear on Oct 29, 2020 15:39:22 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by itsmylife08 on Oct 29, 2020 17:47:26 GMT 7
Good for Gunner at least he appears to have the interests of his constituents at heart, maybe other states should do likewise. I read the Pensioner coalition submission it was a bit of an eye opener very good indeed well done I say. Cheers Itsa
|
|
|
Post by bear on Nov 4, 2020 7:38:08 GMT 7
Cashless welfare card: fewer than 10% of Senate inquiry submissions back bill
NT government, health and justice organisations and academics oppose law to make trial sites permanent and expand scheme
Only 10 of the 132 submissions to a Senate inquiry support the government’s cashless welfare card bill, which aims to make the current trial sites permanent and expand the scheme into the Northern Territory and Cape York.Ahead of a public hearing on Thursday, a review of the submissions published by the inquiry shows about 90% expressed outright opposition or major concerns about the plan, which was announced in the federal budget last month. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner, June Oscar, said the application of the card had “not been shown to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate” and that the current trials were not “warranted”. “As such, the commission has serious concerns about the current bill, which would see the [cashless welfare card] become an ongoing program,” Oscar said in her submission. Other critics included the NT government, several Indigenous health and justice organisations, a number of local Aboriginal corporations, legal and human rights groups, social service agencies, public health experts and academics who have studied the card. While opposition to the bill was overwhelming, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest’s Minderoo Foundation, East Kimberley Indigenous organisation Wunan Foundation, two local government leaders in the Goldfields regions and a former mayor of Ceduna were among those backing the card. The controversial program quarantines up to 80% of a person’s welfare payments on to a card that prevents cash withdrawals and spending on alcohol and gambling products. It aims to reduce social harms, including alcohol and drug abuse, but critics say it causes stress, stigma and is ineffective. Data published by the Guardian has suggested it failed to reduce family violence in one trial site. Under legislation introduced to parliament last month, the existing trial sites at Ceduna in South Australia, the East Kimberley and the Goldfields areas of Western Australia, and Hervey Bay and Bundaberg in Queensland would become permanent. There are 12,000 participants in those areas, though the figure may rise when a pandemic-induced pause on new cards being issued is lifted. The government is also seeking to move about 23,000 people in the Northern Territory and Cape York on to the program. Welfare recipients in the NT and Cape York are already on the “basics card”, which was introduced during the NT intervention in 2007. It is estimated that 83% of those placed on the card in the NT will be Aboriginal, while the trial sites in WA and SA also have high Indigenous populations. A number of academic experts said in submissions there was little empirical evidence to support the card’s continuation. Noting their quantitative study of the Ceduna trial site, published this month, a team of Monash University researchers said they had found “no impact” from the card. “Meaning, neither a decrease nor an increase in measured crime rates, emergency department presentations, electronic gaming (pokies) nor apprehensions for public intoxication,” they said. “This analysis shows that the cashless [welfare] debit card, as presently implemented, is not delivering the benefits it was originally designed to deliver,” the researchers added. The Australian National University researcher Elise Klein said in her submission the government had spent $4.8m on evaluations but failed to produce “credible evidence to support claims of effectiveness, efficiency nor suitability”. Klein, among others, noted the government had brought forward the bill before the release of a final evaluation it commissioned from the University of Adelaide. An earlier evaluation was heavily criticised by the audit office. Cardholders have often complained about being locked out of the local cash and online economy and of card failures and other technical problems. The grassroots group No Cashless Welfare Debit Card Australia, which is based in the Hinkler region in Queensland, said the scheme had caused “heartache and trauma” for participants and their families. The biggest issue experienced by cardholders was that their rents were sometimes declined without notice. “This leaves people in financial stress as they panic about not being able to pay the rent on time,” the group said in its submission. The Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory said the card was “paternalistic” and “discriminatory”. The NT chief minister, Michael Gunner, said his government did not support the card unless it was “voluntary” or an individual was referred to the scheme through a court. The government has no immediate plans for a national rollout, though the prime minister, Scott Morrison, has indicated he is open to the card being further expanded, particularly among young people. Forrest’s Minderoo Foundation, one of the card’s original proponents, claimed it had “reduced ‘humbug’ from families” and that there was “evidence of reduced alcohol consumption and some violence”. It backed making the trial sites permanent, the expansion into the NT and also called for the government to consider extending the card “nationwide for all Youth Allowance recipients”. The Wunan Foundation, another supporter of the card, said the program had improved the lives of people living in the East Kimberley region. It said that the card’s presence during the pandemic, when welfare benefits were doubled, led to a “broadly proportionate increase in spending on groceries and other basic household categories”, according to Department of Social Services data the foundation claims to have obtained. “This means that the [card] is doing what Wunan hoped for when we called for it to be introduced in 2015,” Wunan’s executive chair, Ian Trust, said. Trust was among a number of East Kimberley Aboriginal leaders who backed the card in 2015, although one later withdrew his support for it. The Goldfields-based Coolgardie shire council also said the card had reduced social harms there. www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/03/cashless-welfare-card-fewer-than-10-of-senate-inquiry-submissions-back-bill?fbclid=IwAR1O9s2YTpLgO6BUEsHxq4T7KrOdtSHtJW5IxVAhRcwFyy5me2KJILiAf_8
|
|
|
Post by bear on Nov 13, 2020 7:12:49 GMT 7
Govt won't reveal cost of permanent Centrelink cashless welfare card
The federal government is refusing to reveal the cost of running a permanent, expanded Centrelink cashless debit card scheme – despite a trial in which the private card operator was paid up to $10,000 in taxpayer funding to manage each card of welfare recipients receiving less than $15,000 a year before the pandemic.
Neither the Federal Government nor cashless welfare card operator Indue will say how much Australians will be forced to fork out to make the cashless welfare scheme permanent, citing commercial in confidence and the potential to impact future procurement activities.
But the Australian Council of Social Services has previously estimated the initial trials cost taxpayers $18.9 million, of which just under $10 million went to Indue, which was paid an estimated $10,000 to manage the card of each welfare recipient under the scheme. Before the coronavirus supplement increased payments, JobSeeker, previously known as Newstart, paid $565.70 a fortnight or $14,708 a year. The cards freeze up to 80 per cent of low-income recipients’ payments so that money can be spent on what the government deems essential, and prohibits spending on alcohol, drugs and gambling. Businessman Andrew Forrest initially developed the scheme as part of a 2014 review of Indigenous jobs and training. The Federal Government has since introduced cashless debit card trials in the South Australian west coast town of Ceduna as well as East Kimberley and Goldfields areas of Western Australia, and Hervey Bay and Bundaberg in Queensland. A further 25,000 people in the Northern Territory and Cape York would be expected to move onto the program if the bill becomes legislation. The Canberra Times reported the Government had set aside $17.5 million for that aspect of the scheme but the total number of welfare recipients who would be pushed onto the card remained unclear. The trials are currently due to expire in December but under the Social Security Amendment Bill, which is currently before parliament, the cards would be ongoing. Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said with an influx of new people on low-income payments in trial areas as a result of the economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic it was difficult to estimate the ongoing cost of the cards. “They won’t tell us when and if they are going to put those new people onto the cards and how many (people) there are,” she said. “Consistently, since these trials have been going, they (the Government) … say they’re negotiating the best deal. “They give us more global figures down the track but then it’s hard to know how much each per card per person.” In a statement, a Department of Social Services spokesperson said it did not “breakdown upfront costs for each from the operational costs of the Cashless Debit Card”. “The cost of making the Cashless Debit Card permanent cannot be published as it is commercial-in-confidence and could impact future procurement activities. “In relation to the procurement process, it is important to note that Indue is a public company wholly owned by mutual financial institutions. Each procurement process for the Cashless Debit Card, since its introduction in 2016, was conducted in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, relevant legislation, policies and probity principles.” Siewart said not only did the Australian public have to foot an unknown bill but the cards were impacting low-income earners’ sense of worth. “Sometimes people lose control over certain aspects of their lives, but being able to have control over your expenditure and your finances is really important to people,” she said. “The government can say this is nonsense – but this is how people feel – they feel like the government has taken away control over one of the most personally important things to people, that decision making over expenditure and they feel shame and they feel loss of control.” Australian Council of Social Services senior advisor Charmaine Crowe said the government had spent “well over $1 billion since 2007 on income management and cashless debit”. “It is a costly policy,” she said. “We would argue that there are far better ways to spend those resources on measures that actually help communities, on measures that are community driven, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. “This is a policy that’s adopting a very top-down approach on communities rather than working with local communities, listening to their solutions and putting those solutions into action.” Government minister Trevor Evans, who introduced the bill, previously said the program aimed to reduce immediate hardship and deprivation, help welfare recipients with their “budgeting strategies” and reduce the likelihood people would remain on welfare. He pointed to an evaluation released in late 2017 as evidence that the cashless debit card program was working. However, an independent study of the cards from earlier this year found the cashless debit system did more harm than good. It followed an auditor-general report from 2018 which found the Department of Social Services inadequately monitored and evaluated the scheme, making it unclear if there’d been a reduction in harm. An evaluation of the scheme being undertaken by the University of Adelaide is expected to be handed to government today. Social Services Minister Anne Ruston last week said she while she had not received the university report the government hoped to pass the legislation before the year’s end. “The government is ignoring every credible evaluation of income management and cashless debits since 2007, which have concluded that this kind of policy doesn’t work. It fails to improve the lives of those who are subjected to it and in many communities, we’ve actually seen it cause harm,” Crowe said. “It appears that the government has been selected evaluations on the basis of them presenting a positive picture on this policy whilst they are ignoring more credible evaluations that show that this policy actually is not achieving its objectives. “So, we are strongly urging the government to withdraw this piece of legislation and instead abolish mandatory cashless debit and income management and if it is to exist, then it should be provided on a voluntary basis only.” Indue told InDaily it could not comment on matters that are commercially confidential and directed InDaily to the Department of Social Services. Minister for Families and Social Services Anne Ruston did not respond to InDaily’s questions. indaily.com.au/news/2020/11/10/govt-wont-reveal-cost-of-permanent-centrelink-cashless-welfare-card/?fbclid=IwAR3amNhuWHg6peTbjNU0pQwKz40BB1CRt67EiBsMbctn805WNCipQRxaMY8
|
|