Online petition to stop welfare management

n3wb on 03/05/2015 - 18:06
Last edited 04/05/2015 - 14:31 by 1 other user

Moved to Forum: Original Link

Online petition to stop welfare management in Australia, please sign and help, we need all the signatures we can get.
The government wants to manage our welfare and introduce these new cashless cards, which will stop us buying online, and restricting us to certain brick and mortar stores only, we wont be able to buy from ebay, or any of the stores online posted on ozbargain, it will disadvantage us greatly!

We wont even be able to buy from op shops, second hand stores, garage sales, or from gumtree..

Compulsory Welfare Management is an outrageous attack on the rights of welfare recipients and will have a damaging effect on small businesses.

"Seven years ago the government launched an Intervention in the NT which has tried to establish punishment and control as the policy framework for dealing with social disadvantage. The government's own evaluation shows overwhelming feelings of discrimination and shame. Youth suicide rates have increased 160% and reported rates of self-harm are up more than fivefold," Mr Gibson concluded.

Financial

Related Stores

change.org
change.org

Comments

        • hairy1egs on 08/05/2015 - 18:07

          Agree with that edgar28 their are many decent people unemployed through no fault of their own and they should be able to enjoy a beer like the rest of us so lets hope the government has some balance just fear this is a vote grabber without any thought for peoples dignity

  • sigh on 03/05/2015 - 18:18
    +78

    Shoulld educate yourself why the government wants to do this. Its ultimately their money your spending.
    Worked in areas where this has been implemented already, too often watched unemployed parents do everything they can to circumvent the restrictions to get alcohol, tabacco and cash to gamble exactly what their designed to stop instead of food for their kids.

    • rbaggio on 03/05/2015 - 18:19
      +84

      Actually it's OUR money he's spending.

      • sigh on 03/05/2015 - 18:20
        +6

        Very true

      • djmatt24 on 03/05/2015 - 20:11
        +14

        The irony of your comment is that making sure money is spent on correct items and not alcohol and cigarettes will help people to help themselves.
        And while I support going over the detail with a fine tooth comb looking for evidence of business bias linked to political support, do you actually have evidence of this? Anything?

      • zeomega on 04/05/2015 - 21:34
        +4

        If the government couldn't give a crap about the poor, why give you guys $$ in the first place? Do you really want the government to take that stance and cut off the dole so that people who live off it finally have no choice but to find work?

        • Japius on 06/05/2015 - 07:29

          I'd like to see the Dole have a finite end, as in you get it for 6 months with the possibility (if you prove you're really trying) for a further 3 months then nothing. People will be much more motivated if they know it isn't a never ending gravy train.

        • Talonparty on 07/05/2015 - 02:03

          @Japius: The dole is not a gravy train. You'd really have people starve and live on the street if they couldn't find work fast enough? Why not go a step further, make them fight to the death for your amusement or something?

          It's been shown time and time again that welfare/unemployment payment is a tiny part of the budget and targetting these so called dole bludgers is going to be of very little benefit to the government bottom line. Yet this kind of attitude persists, and it persists in an environment of enormous levels of corporate welfare that enables corporations to privatise the profits and socialise the losses.

          I don't think I'll ever understand. Jesus, the government spent tens of millions on whats been widely recognised as political witchhunts in the form of royal commissions (pink bats, unions etc.) and we're going after people who receive what, 12,000 a year, the majority of which are genuine people in need and who desire to better themselves? It beggars belief.

        • Japius on 07/05/2015 - 06:38

          @Talonparty:

          So it should just continue indefinitely? People can access it for as long as they like? What if you lose your job and access it for a year? 2 years? surely you must put an end to it at some point so people have that extra piece of motivation to find another job?

          I know if my only piece of income was going to end at a certain date I would suddenly be prepared to commute further or move states for work or just try anything. But if a little safety net was always going to be there well I don't like Adelaide so I may not apply for a job there, the taxpayer is giving me the luxury to not do all I can to get a job.

          And yes there are plenty of other wasteful areas on the budget, but just like my personal finances I don't simply cut the big things when needed I look at every aspect even the small savings. This thread is about one of those small savings. Just because there are other areas that could also be looked at does not mean this should be ignored.

          Anyway this topic is about the ingrates complaining that the people giving them a handout to cover basics want to make sure its actually going toward basics. My preference for other changes probably should be discussed elsewhere.

        • Talonparty on 07/05/2015 - 18:00
          +2

          @Japius: Yes, it should continue indefinitely. I would do unto others as I would have done unto me, there but for the grace of god go I etc. I want the safety net there so that people who get trapped in a cycle of long term unemployment don't end up sleeping on my city streets and robbing people or begging to get by. Just how easy do you think it would be to get a job when you're homeless? It's such a small portion of the population and some of these people have suffered incredible tragedy and hardship. Why punish the truly worthy to catch a few of society's scumbags? The social equation largely benefits society as a whole by keeping these people (the 'bludgers') just above rock bottom and not letting them fall into a vicious cycle of poverty and crime. What you pay through welfare now would be dwarfed by law enforcement and health bills. It's common sense really.

          You are right though this is the wrong place for this debate but I couldn't help myself with that final point.

          I do agree with the sentiment about limiting the ability of others to waste their benefits on booze and drugs, but if someone pays for everything they need and saves a little extra why deny them one of life's small pleasures? I suppose if there is still cash left over to put towards purchases from markets etc then that is not too bad, but what's stopping that cash from going on booze and drugs anyway? I often buy from wholesale markets here which only accept cash and where I can get a much better deal than coles or woolworths.

          Honestly, the whole thing seems like a ham-fisted approach to win public sentiment and appeal to the right-wing love of enforcing the 'natural order' on the lower classes, plus it creates a great distraction from the largely poor performance of the government.

        • BigTed on 07/05/2015 - 19:34
          +2

          @Talonparty:
          It is not true that "welfare/unemployment is a tiny part of the budget", unless you consider 35% or $146,000,000,000 a tiny part. see http://budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/glossy/welfare/download…

          Personally I consider it a pretty large part of the budget - but it does include pensions, family payments, childcare and unemployment.

        • Talonparty on 08/05/2015 - 14:56

          @BigTed: yes in total it is large enough, but we are only discussing unemployment benefits and cutting off people who apparently rort the system by staying unemployed too long. The age pension dwarfs the unemployment payment and it must be conceded that a large proportion of people on unemployment benefits are in genuine need and aren't just too lazy to work. I'm on my phone now and I'm finding it difficult to get sources to back all of this up, sorry.

          But honestly, cutting off the few dregs of society living it up like a king on 400 a fortnight really isn't going to do much to the bottom line. The only thing it will help is the Government's approval ratings going by the tone of discussion here.

      • tooslow8888 on 08/05/2015 - 12:35

        Aldi, Coles, Willies aren't owned by the government. There are farmer markets that support EFTPOS. Your government is beyond stupid and irrelevant. I weep for the country when ppl like you are allowed to procreate, and gasp vote!!

    • scrimshaw on 03/05/2015 - 19:48
      +22

      The government's coffers is our tax money. If it weren't for the citizens chipping in tax we would have no welfare, no medicare and no infrastructure.

      This card will not fix any issues however. The drug addicts will still continue to get what they need through other means (black market, theft and illegal channels).

      Also, are you going to force the poor people to only buy from the already powerful ColesWorth duopoly? The fresh food / produce from a local green grocer is far cheaper and forcing them to buy fruit/veg from an overpriced retailer doesn't seem like such a great idea to me.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 09:43
        +4

        Unfortunately I find that shopping at coles brings me the best returns for my time, effort and money.

    • This Guy on 04/05/2015 - 03:04
      +21

      I work in an area with a declining job market. It sucks seeing a 20 year old with rope burns around their neck because they lost their job, their car and are too proud to take the dole.

      Another guy lost his job and told me he wanted to go bush, have a few beers and shoot himself. I asked him to call lifeline's number and he seemed a bit better for the next few weeks. Then his life got worse and he disappeared.

      Working Australians are proud people. We all pay for the dole. There should be no shame taking it when we are down and out, trying to recover financially.

      Whinging about the minority only increases the shame of the honest majority of people who need welfare.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 10:47
        +11

        The general tone here isn't "bashing the unemployed". It's being critical of the way welfare is spent once it has been distributed. Most of us can appreciate that some of us will need the support of others when they are hit with hard times and we also acknowledge that this country is built hand in hand with those we considered in the disadvantaged socio-economic group.

        What we do not appreciate is people mistaking welfare for free-money. When our collective resource is spent on personal betterment and sustenance, we call it welfare; when it is used for recreation and convenience, that's disgusting.

        • This Guy on 04/05/2015 - 11:26
          +5

          "When it is used for recreation and convenience, that's disgusting."

          Where is the line? No washing machines or powder? No hot water?

          "It's being critical of the way welfare is spent once it has been distributed."

          It's none of our business. If you commit the crime of fraud you don't lose the right to financial privacy. Taking a welfare payment is not a crime so why should a recipient have fewer rights than a criminal? Because it’s your money? Who do you most fraudsters are stealing from?

          Ask anyone who works at Centrelink. The majority of people on welfare need it and are not the wasteful caricatures that this thread is making them out to be.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 11:45
          +4

          @This Guy:

          Well, we can pick at extremes to ridicule, but that's just getting defensive in an internet conversation. Let's not go there.

          I'm not saying people on welfare do not need it, nowhere have I stated or implied that. In fact, I don't think ANYONE so far has implied that. However, your point on wastefulness is debatable. It's not something a Centrelink worker is qualified to make (they are the supply end of the payment, they do not see where it goes). I wouldn't couple "need" and "wastefulness" into a single sweeping statement as that's likely to persuade the general consensus to disagree with both, rather than to accept them.

          As for the comparison of welfare to fraud, and issues of rights, I think that's confusing the situation. Firstly, no one is having their rights removed. Individuals on welfare are still entitled to support. NO WHERE does it state in ANY constitution that it is a right to receive welfare in the form of cash.

          As for the issue of fraud, those who have been convicted are audited frequently and scrutinized closely. They do not lose their "privacy rights", but you're mistaking that for personal privacy.

          I also wouldn't give welfare recipients a social label/tag. No one else here has made a comparison of welfare-recipients to criminals, barring yourself.

          I'm not taking a shot at you. I think welfare is necessary, I think welfare-recipients are people, I also think welfare should be a provision of essentials ONLY.

        • This Guy on 04/05/2015 - 18:55
          +6

          @tshow:

          Welfare is ~$400 per week.

          My essentials budget (bills, cheap food and rent) is $375/w. Luxuries like using my heater for a week in winter, eating meat three nights or even just a drive into town all add $20 each to my budget.

          Where is all this money for alcoholism and gambling?

          "Privacy rights"

          Your shopping habits reveal so much information about you. Over a decade ago a rewards program could tell if a customer was pregnant often before they knew. A citizen with a government controlled shopping card has no privacy.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.h…

          Auditing is far less invasive.

          Why should a convicted criminal have more rights than a down on their luck, hardworking Australian family?

          "I wouldn't give welfare recipients a social label"

          I agree, you haven't. But you added to the caricature of them all being scum with this: "too often watched unemployed parents do everything they can to circumvent the restrictions to get alcohol, tobacco and cash". This can cause just as much harm.

          When I went through the comments last night the vast majority were welfare bashing. While no one was labelling, the vast majority was using emotive imagery like yours that stereotyped the majority instead of the minority of problem recipients.

          I'm not taking a shot at you either. I agree welfare is necessary. Yes there are people abusing it, but why should honest majority be treated like scum when there is a far easier and more dignified solution - report fraud.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 22:38
          +1

          @This Guy:
          Again, let me point out an obvious mistake. I didn't say, "too often watched unemployed…". If you're going quote me, please make sure it is me you are quoting. I worked with people on welfare and I know, very intimately so, that welfare does not mean unemployed.

          $375 a week expenses? I'll put it out there, my income is comfortably in the six figures and my weekly expenses does not reach $375 (yes, I am including rent, and yes I rent but that's a whole different thing). This is what a lot of us see as the problem to begin with, financial sense. I estimate my personal expenses to be $300 per week, tops.

          Lastly, fraud isn't the issue at hand, it is abuse. That's the topic the whole time - individuals who receive welfare but spend it frivolously. Reporting fraud has nothing to do with it.

        • phoenixx on 05/05/2015 - 00:35
          +1

          @This Guy:

          Maybe find somewhere cheaper to live. I live in an apartment in inner city Brisbane with my partner and my half of our essentials budget is less than what you are stating for yourself. I could easily find a cheaper place a bit further out.

        • This Guy on 05/05/2015 - 00:51
          +1

          @tshow:

          Sorry, you’re right. I didn't check names. I mistook you for this chain's OP. Again, sorry.

          Those essentials are for two people. My personal costs are around the same as yours.

          I'll waste an hour here or there to save 50% on my phone bill and 12% on my power. I don't know a single person on welfare with the capacity to do that. I know many people employed that can't manage that.

          Most of the waste I see from welfare recipients is overpaying. I can't fault a disabled person or a single mother spending $10 on grog once a month.

          I don't know of any individuals who receive welfare but spend it frivolously. I know of people who have spent an inheritance or a stimulus package frivolously. I have heard rumours about people working off the books while pulling welfare. The people I know will save up for two years to get a new TV because the old one is about to die.

        • anthonyaaa on 05/05/2015 - 23:12
          +2

          @This Guy:

          http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/card-bid-to-stop-…

          “You could use it for anything, anywhere, except for ­alcohol and the pokies. And because cash would be limited, it would restrict the purchase of drugs.’’

          The Federal Government is pressing ahead with the plan, but is insisting on allowing welfare recipients a portion of their payment in cash.

          WOW…. Card would pay for food… electricity…bills things that you needed to survive… just like any debit card…

          even Hoyts cinemas !!… But not your online TAB account… local Ice drug dealer or for booze like liquorland !

          WTF ARE YOU WHINGING ABOUT !!! DEBIT CARD FOR ANYTHING EXCEPT LIQUORLAND ONLINE GAMBLING AND DRUG DEALERS WHAT IS THE ISSUE HERE??

        • This Guy on 09/05/2015 - 02:34
          +1

          @anthonyaaa:

          I have three arguments against it.

          This for one:
          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.h…

          Our government really likes metadata:
          http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1402050262063/Vodafone_web_Updat…

          Combine purchase histories of those on welfare with a government who loves to use meta and 13 years of improvements to data analysis. Australians on welfare will have no privacy. This is more invasive than facebook and a government initiative.

          "You could use it for anything, anywhere"
          If this was true it this program would be a waste of money. Just buy gift cards from woolies then head over to liquorland.

          One of the hardest parts of being poor is buying furniture and electricals. Cash cards make it hard to buy stuff second hand off gumtree.

          Independent landlords can often only take cash.

          If you lose your job, how do you pay a mortgage with a cash card? If you can transfer money between accounts this program is a waste of money.

          If the cash portion of the dole was enough for rent, mortgage, furniture or electricals then again, this program would be a waste of money.

          Working version of your link:
          http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/card-bid-to-stop-…

          "WTF ARE YOU WHINGING ABOUT!!!”

          ALL THE ALCOHOLICS, DRUGGIES AND GAMBLERS I KNOW HAVE JOBS. The only people on welfare I know that can afford a pack of smokes a day and a case every few weeks are the mentally handicapped living in halfway houses.

          I'm not saying there aren't others, but you need to remember welfare supports the retired, veterans, carers and the disabled. Retirees, veterans and carers have all supported our country and have more than deserved the right to complete privacy and financial independence (even if that money comes from taxes). If they want alcohol or smokes it is their right and never a waste.

      • DrStinge on 04/05/2015 - 11:05
        +4

        If less people abused welfare there would be less shame for taking it and more to go around. There's nothing worse than biting the hand that feeds you in this country.

        • This Guy on 04/05/2015 - 11:29
          +5

          If you know someone cheating the system then report them.

          131 524

          http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/information/fraud-a…

        • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 20:34

          That's bull. This country was built on slave labour and stolen resources. The government hates giving out money. Simply being on welfare gives society at large grounds to call you a bludger and tell you to get a job. Yet those in high paying positions who got there through family connections, who's parents pay then through university, who do no work to get where they are, those who go on to become politicians and day they'll do this and that, but never actually help anyone but themselves, never get a look. The fact that we NEED a welfare system is the real welfare abuse.

        • DrStinge on 05/05/2015 - 21:19
          +4

          @mnermner:

          Let's address this piece by piece:

          That's bull. This country was built on slave labour and stolen resources.

          This holds no factual evidence. Whilst Australia has had a checkered history I'm unsure which period you're referring to here.

          The government hates giving out money.

          The government is the representative of the people, none of us like giving out our money unless we need to.

          Simply being on welfare gives society at large grounds to call you a bludger and tell you to get a job.

          If you are able bodied and have no impairments (mental, physical, or other) than yes that's right. You should get a job.

          Yet those in high paying positions who got there through family connections

          Yes family connections will always be an issue, I agree.

          who's parents pay then through university,

          Anyone in Australia can go to University, having parents who pay for your education just means you earn a little less at in the pay packet these days.

          who do no work to get where they are, those who go on to become politicians and day they'll do this and that, but never actually help anyone but themselves, never get a look.

          I always love this line of thinking - it's a job. I personally would rather work 40 hours a week than get my ass reamed to me daily by the public and have every single word I say quoted and misquoted. Politicians work pretty hard for their money and have one of the highest stressed jobs in the world.

          The fact that we NEED a welfare system is the real welfare abuse.

          Ok?

        • Krizy on 06/05/2015 - 15:09
          +2

          @DrStinge:

          'Anyone in Australia can go to University, having parents who pay for your education just means you earn a little less at in the pay packet these days.'

          It's sort of entertaining that there are people with enough privilege to actually believe this tripe.

        • DrStinge on 06/05/2015 - 16:32

          @Krizy:

          Going to University here is still difficult but with sacrifices it is available. All systems have their issues but ours is one of the better ones.

  • Daabido on 03/05/2015 - 18:18
    +20

    Well if Mr Gibson says it is so, that seals the deal for me, whoever he is.

    This is a very complex issue. If you are receiving welfare payments and especially if you have children, should you be able to buy alcohol or cigarettes or illicit drugs with that money? I'm not saying that everyone does that.

    I would rather see free school breakfasts and lunches introduced at schools in lower socio-economic areas, so I no longer have to see things like a single uncooked Maggi noodle pack with the flavour sachet sprinkled on top being the breakfast and lunch for a student.

    • stringbean402 on 04/05/2015 - 16:54
      +3

      Maggi ! damn high rollers. I had to make do with homebrand noodles when i was at school.

      • fusion17 on 05/05/2015 - 10:05
        +1

        I recall some of the homebrand ones tasting better than maggi raw. Noodles were finer, crunchier, saltier and likely deep deep fried already.

        • stringbean402 on 05/05/2015 - 20:20
          +1

          Yeah Maggi noodles are shite… I dunno why people eat them, but they do.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 20:35
      +2

      Yes. Yes you should be allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes, just like any other citizen can

      • Japius on 06/05/2015 - 07:35

        I agree. Anyone earning their own money has a right to spend it as they see fit including on legal vices such as alcohol and cigarettes.

        So take the basics card, the generous handout that you do not earn but we graciously provide for basics, use it to get by until you get a job and earn your own money to go spend as you see fit, maybe try saying thank you to the rest of us once you no longer need our help to cover basics.

  • n3wb on 03/05/2015 - 18:19
    +1

    Not everyone can work, there's people out there on the disability pension, single mothers looking after children, and carers caring for family.

    • sigh on 03/05/2015 - 18:23
      +29

      Money management is the key, not everyone is put in this program, not during the trials anyway, its the derelicts that waste their money with clear and distinct issues that have been highlighted with centrelink.
      If you're good with your money and show track record of meeting fonancial commitments then should be able to prevent yourself from being included in such a program

      • Kezzaroony on 03/05/2015 - 19:49

        Youth, those out of jail, pockets of sole parents and those considered at risk are so far on the basics card. Eventually the government will want to roll out the 'Healthy Welfare Card' which will eventually lead us to a cashless society. They've already floated this idea. If they don't succeed they try other avenues until they eventually get their way. No more cash for garage sales, farmers markets, kids tuck shops and pocket money.

        • djmatt24 on 03/05/2015 - 20:02
          +23

          No more cash for garage sales, farmers markets, kids tuck shops and pocket money.

          Most people don't go to garage sales on a regular basis, and what would they be buying there?
          You want the luxury of buying your organic kale from a farmers market? Earn your own money.
          Kids tuck shop? What a waste! Make your kids a sandwich. Probably cost you about 40c.

          If you want the luxury of these things you need to earn your own money. Oh, and I'm saying this as someone who's been on welfare.

        • sigh on 03/05/2015 - 20:09
          +17

          Have to agree with djmatt24, most of those things are luxuries, i'd happily support farmers markets but not at twice the price and once a month, my budget can't afford that and i work. I'm yet to meet someone on welfare touting the organic apples they bought for their kids lunch, normally they were more excited anout their keno tickets and whining about ciggarette prices

        • ankor on 04/05/2015 - 16:56
          +1

          @sigh:

          As an ozbargainer I regularly attend either rocklea or west end for fresh fruit and vegetables. way cheaper than colesworths.

          I am a lefty, and even I think the propaganda surrounding these issues spruiked by that guy kezzarooney is bs.

        • sigh on 04/05/2015 - 20:43
          +1

          @ankor: no problem with it at all, i don't have farmers markets nearby, or clise enough to negate travelling so far. My ecperience of farmers markets has normally been the low volume and/or organic producers which while I'm hapy to support small business $10 a kilo for apples or $3 a cucumber is a little steep for me, bargains are there to be had, i just haven't found them.
          Some people just hate on an idea because someone they disagree with the people who came up with it, or fail to actually understand all the information.

        • tooslow8888 on 08/05/2015 - 12:37

          beggars can't be choosers. go troll somewhere else.

        • nonbeliever93 on 10/05/2015 - 11:20

          @djmatt24: Garage sales can provide toys, furniture and other secondhand goods for families. Farmers markets can be cheaper than regular supermarkets and people have a right to choose what kind of food they eat. Canteen orders are useful for single working parents who have the occasional busy day. They also have a non-monetary value in maintaining a child's happiness and self-worth. Poverty erodes self esteem fast which disadvantages kids at school very very quickly.

    • qweenDalilahHur on 04/05/2015 - 10:55
      +3

      The government wants to stop the benefits being spent on the pokies and alcohol, leaving families with no money for essentials like food and bills

  • TheAviator on 03/05/2015 - 18:29

    It is unsurprising that we see such an idea coming out of the Liberal Party, looking to assist their donors (read, big business mates).

    This card is a boon to big businesses, as they will get chosen as one of the places at which the card can be used at. Places like your Gerry Harveys, Woolworths etc could get business while local retailers, convenience stores etc won't see any of the money. And I'm certain that many if not all of the big business political donors will certainly be allowed to accept the card.

    So yeah, I'm not opposed to welfare for those who need it, and if there was a way for the money to be spent effectively without creating advantages for big businesses (as this card will no doubt do) then I would probably at least consider it. But as the proposal stands, no way.

    • microsnot on 03/05/2015 - 22:18
      +2

      convenience stores

      If I were on welfare, I don't think I would go to a convenience store and waste my money.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 15:00

        It's usually cheaper to walk to the convenience store to buy something than to catch a bus to get it at a supermarket (assuming you don't have a car/registration/license). What if you've got 5 kids to take as well are you gonna go on that bus?

        • microsnot on 04/05/2015 - 22:44

          And also the parent is actually crippled and had 3 nephews were staying with them who suffer from seizures also and the nearest supermarket was in the next town and…

        • Dan_ on 05/05/2015 - 00:00
          +7

          If it were up to me, people would be means tested before they're allowed to have children!

    • DrStinge on 04/05/2015 - 11:08
      +4

      That's right. It's a super conspiracy! The government purely made this card to benefit it's "big mates"! Forgot all that real world data out there about the abuse of welfare and families starving, this is purely for Abbott's buddies. We should make a riot! Yeah!!!

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 15:00
        -1

        Agreed!

      • BartholemewH on 05/05/2015 - 18:47
        +3

        Keep dreaming, there's no government bonus to encourage them to organize a riot.

        • DrStinge on 05/05/2015 - 19:44

          This actually made me chortle, good work.

  • plmko on 03/05/2015 - 20:03
    +29

    Having been on welfare before in life and living in crap areas, I welcome some sort of restriction. Too easy to be on welfare when you don't help yourself, but too hard to get welfare when you really need it.

    Welfare isn't welfare if you can do whatever you want with it, that's just called an income top-up.

    • scrimshaw on 03/05/2015 - 20:29
      +16

      The restriction in it's current form is not well implemented. It'll only lower the living standards of the poor further. It only benefits the big businesses. It doesn't the poor lift themselves out of poverty — it only serves as a money maker for the big guys who are invovled with this card because it'll help increase their customer base.

      Meanwhile, the smaller businesses, say, your local grocer, the baker, the asian restaurant that sells cheap take-away and the cheap $2 shop that sells your miscellaneas tools / soap and clothing all lose their chunk of their 'poor welfare customers' because they don't have a bloody EFTPOS machine and are not covered by your Welfare card. So you'll have to get all your daily neccessities from BigW, Target and Woolies and pay a higher price.

      The government does not have the interests of you, nor of people on welfare at heart, they're doing this to gain the approval of the Lib voters and those belonging in the middle and upper class. The lower class is completely getting shafted — if your funds are locked up and the government dictates you can only spend it on the minimum essentials to survive, will you be able to buy that second hand fridge from gumtree because your current one broke? No can do, because you're cashless.

      • djmatt24 on 03/05/2015 - 20:51
        +9

        This card is not a persons full welfare. The Govt has already said the card will be a portion, as it's not practical to be completely cashless.
        I don't particularly care about the ideology of the liberal party (which I generally disagree with).
        Whatever the reasons, this policy is a good idea. It helps recipients budget, and curbs abuse of taxpayer funds which we KNOW is widespread. It's not going to be perfect from the start. But that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 10:19
        +3

        Most grocers/butchers/fruit and veg I go to accept EFTPOS. I am far from a fan of the duopoly and I shop at small businesses when possible.

        As for cheap takeaways, I agree, they do not have EFTPOS but when someone has all the time in the world (I am not including disability welfare here), they can cook their own bloody food. The working community isn't paying for someone else's free lunch, and then serving it on the proverbial platter too.

        • stringbean402 on 04/05/2015 - 17:01
          +3

          The more money you take away from CASH ONLY businesses the better.

          CASH ONLY = TAX SCAM

          TAX SCAMMERS = LESS GOVT FUNDING FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES LIKE THE DOLE.

  • dylanando on 03/05/2015 - 20:44
    +8

    I see no problem. Money's Money! Ill take it if you dont want it!

    • liquid metal on 03/05/2015 - 22:33
      -1

      No, it isn't anymore. You can spend cash everywhere. You can spend the basic card 'money' only in selected stores.

    • Japius on 06/05/2015 - 07:40
      +2

      I'm with you, if some welfare recipient is so offended by the generous card I'll take it instead, happy to use it to buy my groceries and feed my family. I'm not going to complain about the means the government uses to give me stuff I haven't earned, I will just take it and say thank you with a smile.

  • gimli on 03/05/2015 - 21:28
    +14

    Ozbargain should be managing more peoples income.

    You are only allowed to buy eneloops and headphones.

    • 2ndeffort on 05/05/2015 - 14:21
      +3

      See this is the Duopoly conspiracy again, only eneloops and headphones policy is designed to protect their mates the eneloop billionaires that contribute to their party. What about my Cree flashlight addiction? How do i get more Crees if i am restricted to Eneloops?

    • BartholemewH on 05/05/2015 - 18:50
      +1

      Damn, was hoping to buy 288 Finish Powerballs.

  • xoom on 03/05/2015 - 22:27
    +2

    Having seen the effects of a negligent parents to their kids overseas where welfare is non existent. I welcome this move in a somewhat right direction. Granted the legislation needs work in the final details. However inaction will result in far worse conditions for the kids of said parents.

    Before anyone go all doom and gloom this legislation is unlikely to affect those who are doing the right thing and spending their benefits and or income the right way and managing their finances.

    An example of people that should be on this are… if a parent has money to buy booze and ciggies but not money for groceries. Money to put on the pokies but no pocket money for their kids going to school.

    • jackary on 03/05/2015 - 22:58

      And how do DHS determine where the money was spent to begin with?

      • lysp on 04/05/2015 - 15:21
        +3

        They have a very good idea where money is being spent.

        They deal with Police, child protection, case workers, disability on a daily basis.

        When you're around it all the time, you can easily tell which people pride themselves in their housing and do their best to look after it and are grateful. And also those who abuse/try and game the system or have abuse issues are behind in rent, etc.

  • microsnot on 03/05/2015 - 22:30
    +3

    Putting all welfare recipients on this does seem like a waste of money. Maybe they should trial it on the pollies and Twiggy. Reduce the waste by removing parliamentary welfare benefits and allowances.

    Also why not restrict tobacco also if you're going to restrict gambling and alcohol which are both legal products/services in Australia.

    • xoom on 03/05/2015 - 22:41
      +8

      It's not a question of the legality of cigarettes, gambling or alcohol.

      It's about people spending money on it when they should be buying the essentials first. Like groceries.

  • chill on 03/05/2015 - 23:07
    +10

    2 year old petition with only 3,905 supporters…

    • kima on 04/05/2015 - 15:41
      -7

      a lot of people on welfare can't afford internet or don't have the skills to use it, its not surprising

      • scrimshaw on 04/05/2015 - 16:23
        +4

        I think it's more like most people don't care because it doesn't affect them.

        If it was a petition against mandatory internet censorship, you can expect it to blow up, but a petition for welfare distribution, nobody will give a toss because a) it's none of their business and b) they support it because people on welfare are generally looked down upon.

  • BigTed on 03/05/2015 - 23:12
    +14

    "Compulsory Income Management is an outrageous attack on the rights of welfare recipients"

    Which rights would that be exactly? The right to waste government benefits on crap?
    Afraid you picked the wrong forum if you wanted sympathy.
    No-one here at Ozbargain thinks the government does such a good job at spending our money that we want to give them a cent more than we have to.

  • Cluster on 04/05/2015 - 00:40
    +18

    "We wont even be able to buy from op shops, second hand stores, garage sales, or from gumtree.."

    How about giving some other realistic real life examples in the interest of fair and reasonable balance?

    "We don't be able to spend money on pokies, at the casino, can't buy liquor, tobacco"

    If taxpayers are being called upon to help you out in life, isn't it reasonable for those taxpayers to have at least some say in how that money is spent? I am all for fair and reasonable treatment of people, and it applies both ways.

  • Lancerx on 04/05/2015 - 01:11
    +6

    It's free money OP, so just STFU and just spend your money wisely…there are plenty of things you can do with those money, even if it means give it back to local business..

    • notarealperson on 04/05/2015 - 07:30

      If OP is a welfare recipient than I doubt he can afford to buy from local businesses.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 01:44
    +5

    Nice, so government basically is giving them gift cards, they can buy food but not smokes?
    How nice government, bring it on!
    There are many families getting help from government, I don't think anyone has problem, I only accept this part, that some people dont wanna show the card coz they are being supported by government but not a big deal!
    I dont know how the card works and looks, could be a mobile app!

  • AMLagonda on 04/05/2015 - 02:11
    +4

    In my mind, you want a packet of chips (smokes or alcohol) get a F'n job, life luxuries should Not be paid for with the dole.

  • This Guy on 04/05/2015 - 02:37
    +4

    Welfare is a tool to reduce crime. Negligent parents aren't idea citizens. If they can't get their vice with their welfare checks they will use crime.

    Would you rather pay $400 a week to keep these people content or ~$1700 per week to gaol them?

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/05/2015 - 03:53

      Wait…so you are saying we should just turn a blind eye to negligent parents?

      Speechless.

      • This Guy on 05/05/2015 - 16:52
        +1

        What?

        We have DOCS, teachers and the police if the kid is seriously neglected.

        Everyone here is on a rant about how horrible people on welfare are. I tried to make a point in a way that wouldn't be downvoted to oblivion.

    • goosegog on 11/05/2015 - 16:03

      1* De- sex them so they can't breed any more to grow up ( or be dragged up ) in the same ridiculous mental attitude.
      2* Some " human beings" should never be allowed to become parents as they don't have the emotional or mental ability to conduct themselves within society.
      3* Welfare is not a god given right for people too lazy to get out there & support themselves & their families.
      4* Hearing anyone state " It's alright for you, you're so lucky " makes my blood boil. The ONLY PLACE that Luck comes before Work & after Effort is in the dictionary !!

      Do not like spongers - anything that can be done to cut them out of the system to leave more for worthy people should be implemented a.s.a.p.

      • This Guy on 12/05/2015 - 09:58

        My point isn't about kids.

        My point is about giving 'lazy' people a bare minimium as an incentive not to commit crime because it costs ~4x more to gaol them.

  • dennisc on 04/05/2015 - 07:35
    +5

    Some people will only be happy when ice dealers accept Visa debit cards.

  • Japius on 04/05/2015 - 08:30
    +15

    Is there a petition to support this?

    Welfare should be a stop gap not a lifestyle and a little bit of restrictions because some welfare recipients think our taxes are for them to buy cigarettes and alcohol is a small price to pay, this is a good thing IMO

    • JimmyF on 05/05/2015 - 09:33

      agreed.. Lets start one to support this!

      I don't want my tax dollars going to smokes/alcohol/drug dealers etc!

  • abdalian on 04/05/2015 - 09:06

    In some instances and mental illnesses it is beneficial for sure du people to be on financial management which in other terms is also called a Protective Estate Order…
    I have worked for many years with people who are on dole. Though I've been a high ranking professional - it makes me sick to see how people waste our hard earned tax payers money!
    I think the real problem is disability support pension itself as well and other supports available. People can to to a GP and get support for "being depressed" while they don't have a clinical depression, but they don't wanna work!
    I totally disagree with this post

    • Thaal Sinestro on 05/05/2015 - 00:19

      It used to be easy to get DSP, but for the past 5 years or so it is apparently extremely difficult to qualify.

  • cypher67 on 04/05/2015 - 09:20
    +8

    I think this as a bit of an overreaction, This system will only be enforce on people that have a track record of abusing the system and the money they are given, example: Ending up in lock up on a frequent basis due to drug or alcohol abuse. If you are on a pension or centrelink and you are not considered a high risk, I am sure this program will not impact you. There is 2 many people out there abusing the system, on a show one night you had a bloke out west sydney saying he has never worked, doesnt plan to work, and that centrelink fuels his alcoholism sufficiently. He doesnt work because he doesnt need to and I think one of the excuses he gave was he would get lost if he had to go to the city and didnt want to waste hours a week on a train…

  • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 09:33
    +1

    Shouldn't centerlink only be used for basic necessities only? What is the true entitlement of welfare recipients?

  • Japius on 04/05/2015 - 09:44
    +30

    I don't understand how someone who is begging for money from the Government (i.e. other taxpayers) can then complain about how the assistance is given. If I had to go on welfare I would be so thankful that I got anything at all and just deal with the fact i can't buy a bottle of Rum and have to provide food for my kids instead.

    It's quite disgusting to me that someone would ask for a handout and then complain they don't like the handout and want something more

  • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 10:14
    +12

    I think the title should be changed to - Online Petition to Stop Welfare Management

    Also, replace all other uses of "income" to welfare. It mislead me for a brief moment to believe that the government is trying to control hard earned money.

    I don't see how this is an outrageous attack on welfare recipients. The motive is driven by financial responsibility. It cuts out retail shopping whilst still enabling welfare recipients to receive essential goods and services. That is what welfare is, to provide essential goods and services until the recipient is self sufficient.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 10:38

      So true, happened to me too and for a moment was so boiling thought what's the difference to be in Australia or in North Korea or Russia or china or some communist dictatorship!
      Please report it, I am sure op would not fix this

      • [Deactivated] on 04/05/2015 - 10:56
        -2

        I've given it more thought. The title is good, more people are likely to look into it and have a read through.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join