Centrelink Income Management - Impairs Bargain Hunting...

• 

  illusionarybreeze on 16/06/2012 - 17:31

  Do you have a link to the article? What's income management?

  • 

    easternculture on 16/06/2012 - 17:42

    did u ask google :)

    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/centrelink-income-trial-unwelcome-…

• 

  easternculture on 16/06/2012 - 17:50

  +1

  Finally their doing something about the double dipping that happening in those suburbs
  I know heaps of people in bankstown that are on centrelink payments and work cash in hand security or Taxi and never report that income to centrelink
  i also know couples from that area that got divorced legally to get payments and housing commission but still live as a couple.
  In-fact my friend is also on the pension, works security overnight $19/hr and lives in a 3 bedroom housing commission which he pays $60/week.
  How is all that fair !!
  We pay tax and they abuse the system.
  And alot of them are driving expensive cars too !!

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 16/06/2012 - 18:29

    +1

    Have you reported them?

    • 

      easternculture on 16/06/2012 - 19:04

      +1

      dude its a complicated process
      they clearly know whats going on, i have a friend who works at centrelink , he tolds me its a complicated process apparently.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 16/06/2012 - 18:50

  Only people that might benefit are Coles and Woolworths shareholders with local businesses left in the cold.

  If someone is behind in their rent and do it more then once simply deduct the payment from their centrelink payment.

  If the aren't feeding their kids that's an issue outside the bounds of stupid and simplistic money management issue. If the parent/s have an addiction they'll just trade the amount on the card to some unscrupulous bastard.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 16/06/2012 - 22:06

  +2

  i.e. racism. There are plenty of other lower socio-economic areas surrounding bankstown which have not been affected.

  Its a trial

  And just like the NBN, it starts somewhere, and no matter where it starts someone will say something like it's racist, its political because they have their own agendas.

  See how it pans out first before assuming its for the worst.

  It may work and then it may not, but just letting things continue the way it is, means poverty for those trapped with a system which doesnt help. And then there are those who rort the system, and that just means less for other beneficial things like hospitals schools transport.

  And yes the rorters live in other areas other than Bankstown, but again it has to start somewhere

• 

  StewBalls on 17/06/2012 - 01:35

  Let me preface this by saying that I'm very much against welfare cheats, and any real moves to clamp down on them are welcomed by this particular taxpayer!

  That said, I recall when the same thing was proposed 15-20 years ago, and I remember having lengthy conversations with a colleague about it then as he had consulted on a similar trial somewhere in NZ. For the same reasons that it wouldn't fly then, I still honestly can't see them getting it off the ground, ever!

  Aside from the social stigma this attaches to people, the tangible negative impact of significant limitations in autonomy over providing basic staples for the family (in a very culturally diverse area) are enough for any reasonable person to objectively see it as discriminatory for everyone involved. Throw in the fact that the limitations will mean impaired access to culturally appropriate foods for more than one ethnic demographic & you have a Human Rights, Equal Opportunity & Anti-discrimination minefield for the government…they will cave long before the first card is embossed!

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 17/06/2012 - 02:03

    he had consulted on a similar trial somewhere in NZ.

    Its a similar system to the one they are using in the NT and WA, so it has some legs for working, vs the NZ system.

    I just think given its a trial, and its a better way to implement new ideas, rather than make it nationwide without finding out what works etc (Ala Pink Batts, education halls etc)

    In this case they should be recognised for at least trying to find a better solution rather than just throw things in the too hard basket, and giving up as soon as someone plays the racist card.

    Remember in the NT, that was the first card they played.

    Frankly this is public money and with their track record being rather poor, again we should at least let them try, for all our sakes.

    • 

      StewBalls on 17/06/2012 - 02:30

      Frankly this is public money and with their track record being rather poor, again we should at least let them try, for all our sakes.

      Public money being wasted IMHO, because it will never get off the ground…I'll bet HREOC is being inundated even as we speak! The reasons that it may have some legs in remote areas of the NT/WA; where the community leaders have acknowledged that they need help; are vastly different to the rationales for the implementation of the proposed trial in NSW; hence why they're just urinating into the breeze! ;)

      There's not even any need to play the race card, the scheme takes away basic human rights like dignity & autonomy. TBH, this is a time that I don't mind seeing the race card pulled to achieve a reasonable end. There are better ways to weed out the cheats than punishing everyone wholesale!

      Let me put it in the perspective my colleague once did…you're a worker who gets laid off because your company has gone ass-up, so potentially no severance or entitlements because some scumbag liquidator has also gutted the company for the purpose of lining their own parasitic pockets. Now you're actively looking for a new job (not a cheat or bludger) in a tough economy, yet at the very time you & your family are requesting the support you are entitled to; and indeed your taxes have helped pay for; the government tells you that because there are some welfare cheats in your district that you must line up with crooks & bums for crumbs on the breadline with bloody food coupons…seriously, how degrading would that be!

      • 

        Geewhizz on 17/06/2012 - 06:03

        +1

        Probably not wise to base an argument entirely on what you read in the media. Not everyone who lives in Bankstown and is on Centrelink payments is to be put on income management. It's those who have given cause for concern (from a CL insider).

        While I don't agree with income management in any shape or form, it would be fantastic if someone could wave a magic wand and come up with a way to ensure ALL our children are adequately fed, clothed, housed, schooled and nurtured.

      • 

        Geewhizz on 17/06/2012 - 07:51

        +1

        Probably not wise to base an argument entirely on what you read in the media.

        Should have read " not wise to base your OPINION entirely on what you read in the media"

      • 

        StewBalls on 17/06/2012 - 10:45

        It's those who have given cause for concern (from a CL insider).

        A fair point; however, lot of us don't have the advantage of a 'CL insider' though, so our purely speculative opinion can only be formed by the information to which we do have access…i.e. the mass media. Ok, so only a selected few will be given the mandate? The inherent problem with that is, when does such profiling amount to a breach of a person's human rights? Here's what DFAT have to say on those:

        Human rights are inherent, inalienable, indivisible and universal. They are the birthright of all people and cannot be lost or taken away. They are all of equal importance and apply to all people whatever their race, gender, disability, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, age, property or other status. Observance of human rights, in Australia and abroad, benefits the security and prosperity of all nations and individuals. Successive Australian governments have supported these principles and systems.

        http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/democratic_rights_freedoms.html

        it would be fantastic if someone could wave a magic wand and come up with a way to ensure ALL our children are adequately fed, clothed, housed, schooled and nurtured.

        I agree with you 110% Geewhizz, I am all for ensuring a better standard of care for our kids; however, degrading, ignominious welfare restrictions for families will not achieve this at all.

        Only a complete reform of DoCS will begin to address the child protection issue! Let me tell you, that is a dept where I do have insider knowledge…they are the worst run government dept I have ever seen, and everyone from the minister down should hang their heads in shame for the appalling state of affairs within DoCS. You have a few good staff trying their best for kids who are browbeaten into defeat & eventual resignation by corrupt, stupid or lazy peers/supervisors. How some of them have been given positions requiring any more complexity than flipping burgers is beyond me…yet they are responsible for the safety & wellbeing of society's most vulnerable members. I'd better get off my soapbox on that, coz I could go all day on that particular topic with the abominable things I've seen from DoCS; and continue to see; professionally & personally.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 17/06/2012 - 16:13

        There are five categories of people in those disadvantaged areas who will be affected by
        the proposed scheme:
        1. Young people (under 25 years) who have been on nominated payments for at
        least than 13 weeks in the last 26 weeks;
        2. ‘Long-term unemployed’ (over 25 year olds) who have been nominated payments
        for at least 52 weeks in the previous 104 weeks;
        3. Income support recipients assessed as ‘vulnerable’ by a Centrelink social worker;
        4. Individuals referred for income management by child protection authorities;
        5. Individuals who request voluntary income management.

        http://acoss.org.au/images/uploads/ACOSS_analysis_income_man…

        That's pretty much everyone because who finds a job within a few weeks? Lol. Glad not to be affected.

• 

  chuckynoris on 17/06/2012 - 08:16

  These people who cheat on the system only wreck it for genuine people like myself. I have several physical disability's from birth. Despite my disability's i did work full time for 20 years. However it was getting a lot harder for me to work because of my disability's. I applied for the DSP so i could work part time. Under the Howard government it was a lot harder for genuine people like me to get the DSP. I went through hell to get the DSP. I was knocked back by Centerlink and yet on the rating scale by Centerlink my disability's were rated as severe. Even the officer at Centerlink said i should have got the DSP. In the end i did get it when i spoke to my local MP who spoke to the minister for Centerlink and i also received a unconditional apology from the minister.

  I can understand why the government has to do this the only problem is that people like me get caught in the crossfire.

  I haven't had a easy life i don't have any parents to support me and i was in a institution when i was young. However despite this i have made a life for myself and i try to do the best i can and i know that's all the tax payer ask for. I wished i could work full time and not be a burden on society i wished i could have all things that people take for granted like a flat tv, mobile phone, and a Ipad but i just cant afford it and at the end of the day i just go with out. That is life as Derryn Hinch would say.

• 

  HilMcK46 on 17/06/2012 - 09:14

  +1

  If you know of someone who is double dipping, claiming sole parent pension or whatever it is your duty as a taxpayer to dob them in. You can do this anonymously. If more people I'd this we wouldn't have the problem. There are plenty of people who are genuinely in need who deserve this money

• 

  Postulative on 17/06/2012 - 11:44

  It's interesting to read all the comments in this thread about how this will affect people who are temporarily in the ranks of the unemployed through no fault of their own. Please read the entire article, including details on how the scheme is to be implemented, before jumping to conclusions and demonstrating that you haven't read it.

  If you do know of someone who's cheating the system, report it - otherwise it keeps happening.

  In the meantime, the vast majority of welfare recipients have nothing to worry about (except for the way unemployment benefits are indexed leading to them effectively shrinking over time, leaving it as a very poor "safety net", while pensions are indexed properly).

  • 

    StewBalls on 17/06/2012 - 12:03

    Please read the entire article, including details on how the scheme is to be implemented,

    The entire article is ~600 words in total, not 'detailed' by any reasonable standard. However, at face value; with the few facts to hand; the scheme appears flawed from the outset unless I see a whitepaper to convince me otherwise.

    before jumping to conclusions…In the meantime, the vast majority of welfare recipients have nothing to worry about…

    That's a bit of a leap in-and-of itself. When government departments are involved there are always those who slip through the cracks, the civil courts are full of them getting paid out!

    • 

      Postulative on 17/06/2012 - 13:50

      You didn't even bother reading the white paper?

      • 

        StewBalls on 17/06/2012 - 13:54

        Is there one…link please?

  • 

    Jabba the Hutt on 19/06/2012 - 17:30

    In the meantime, the vast majority of welfare recipients have nothing to worry about

    I suspect the fear is although it's presented as a limited, targeted trial, it paves the way for a broader roll out, which would enhance the stigma of being a welfare recipient by making people dependent on an electronic "food stamp" style system. An expansion might be particularly attractive to a political party looking for a "tough on welfare" policy.

    • 

      StewBalls on 19/06/2012 - 17:39

      Agreed. IMHO it will never get off the ground, so yes it really does reek of a cheap vote-grab by a desperate government!

• 

  [Deactivated] on 04/07/2012 - 13:26

  Looks like I was wrong….

  They changed the criteria.

  http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink…

  Who it applies to
  Income Management does not apply to everyone in these locations. You must be receiving an income support payment or Department of Veterans’ Affairs payment and:
  (a)
  be referred by the department’s social worker (where you have been assessed as being vulnerable to financial crisis)
  (b)
  be referred by a child protection authority (where a child in your care is at risk of neglect) or
  (c)
  volunteer for Income Management.