Cashless Welfare Card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cashless Welfare Card or Indue card or healthy welfare card or Cashless Debit Card or white card is an initiative to do with social services in Australia. It is a bank card which quarantines income for people on certain income support payments by not allowing the owner to purchase alcohol or gamble or to withdraw cash. The cards are attached to a separate bank account into which 80% of the income support payment is paid. In addition, the cashless welfare card only allows users of the card to buy products at approved sellers, that support electronic MasterCard or Visa payments. It cannot stop users from buying restricted goods at shops that sell both restricted and approved goods, such as supermarkets that sell alcohol. Bill payments are set up by Centrelink to automatically be paid by the card. An earlier income management card, the BasicsCard, was trialled in the Northern Territory.

In 2013, Andrew Forrest was chosen to lead a review into Indigenous employment and training programs, which was to report to the Australian government. Alan Tudge was to work with Forrest on the review, and Marcia Langton was also on the review committee. The review was delivered on 1 August 2014, with 27 recommendations. Forrest recommended that the healthy welfare card be mandatory for unemployed people, carers, people with disabilities and single parents. According to Langton, the review recommended that the card only be used in areas where most households were receiving welfare, with the goal of ending intergenerational poverty. The Forrest Review did not review the impact of the BasicsCard or other income management schemes when recommending the healthy welfare card. While Forrest initially envisaged a fully cashless card, Tudge altered it to be mostly cashless.

Inquiry

A senate inquiry was conducted into the card in 2015.

Trials

http://lazerzap.com/images/trialsites.png

Cashless Welfare Card is located in Australia Ceduna/Kununurra/Kalgoorlie/Bundaberg Existing trial sites (red) and proposed (yellow)

Trials began in March 2016. Senator Rachel Siewert of the WA Green Party attempted to halt the trials. The card has faced criticism for targeting Indigenous people, and for its compulsory use by recipients of social security payments, even when they do not engage in behaviours like using illegal drugs or alcohol or gamble. In August 2017, a delegation of community and Indigenous leaders showed Turnbull video footage of their town, describing them as “war zones”, asking for the card to be implemented in their towns. In December 2017, Labor and the Greens announced that they would not support further trials in the Goldfields or Bundaberg. The third trial location has not yet been decided. The legislation to decide on the third trial site would also make it possible for the government to roll the card out more widely without parliamentary approval.

Ceduna, South Australia

When the trial began, Ceduna elder Sue Haseldine stated that community consultation had been limited to service providers, rather than including people who would be put on the card. The community panels that cardholders can apply to to get more of their income as cash are anonymous.

Kununurra and Wyndham, Western Australia

Trials in Kununurra and Wyndham began in April 2016. Around 1,200 people are part of the trial in Kununurra and Wyndham. WA Police have released statistics saying that violence and intimidating behaviour has increased in the area since the card’s introduction.

Kalgoorlie, Western Australia

Turnbull announced that the Goldfields, including Kalgoorlie, would be a trial site for the cashless card in September 2017. This trial site would include 3800 participants. In a statement to the senate inquiry on the suitability of Kalgoorlie, the government commented on the site’s potential to test the card’s scalability to a wider use within the population.

Hinkler, Queensland

6,700 people in the Division of Hinkler will be rolled into the trial in 2018. It is the first urban area to trial the card.

2018-07-15 Indue Welfare Card

The Say NO Seven July 13 at 8:22 PM · ⚠🐦 Is the CDC a test pilot for a full scale run on economic freedoms in Australia? You decide.

We were going to send this out privately however we felt it was important enough to get this out there now as we know many are still writing submissions….

We have a point to note for all of the sub writers out there at this time. An issue has revealed itself within the expansion legislation that we feel you need to be aware of and may want to include in your arguments, that is the issue of digital currency as an inclusion on the prohibited list.

Wait…Before you think ’ oh that digital thing. I dont use it..it wont effect me’ think again..and again…please.

This amendment is bad not just because it ‘prohibits’ those on trials from making use of digital currencies, it is evil because it REMOVES OUR RIGHT TO CHOSE HOW WE WILL TRANSACT AT ALL and forces us to transact ONLY with banking insitutions and those institutions empowered by government.

This amendment is a significant power grab!

We’ve told people from begining we would yell out TRUCK! if we saw legislative skullduggery going on and thats all we can do here and now, yell TRUCK! IS! COMING! and hope to god people move out of the way or try and stop it.

If this amendment passes, we have no doubt it will be later used to exclude all Australians who have committed no crime, from exercising basic economic freedoms and will be used not only to shore up the failing centralised banking sector, it will block access to all evolutionary financial platforms and all the choices that go with that. It’s effectively closing the gate on a prison. It’s one step further to the totaltarian state and it wider implications are massive - whether people can comprehend them yet or not.

The LNP are intentionally using the CDC legislation process, to make significant changes to the laws that govern the WAY people transact in Australia, sneaking politically expedient economic ‘reforms’ in the back door - reforms that would otherwise be feircely challenged in the parliament, press and in wider public debate.

Depending solely on the pretext called into play, this legislation, inclusive of this amendment, could at any time be used as ‘precedent’ and expanded to force all non banking currency and trade/exchange forms nation wide through the 4 big banks doors and put an end to actual free and alternate trade. So..yeah. It’s a big deal.

We know the people behind the CDC legislation work incrementally so they don’t ‘scare the sheep’ so to speak, so any wider application or implementation of this restrictive policy would be a fair way off, however it is enough to say that if this amendment is approved, it will set a massive precedent down in law, empowering government to seize control over all currency exhanges in Australia; That’snot just bitcoin either, its every digital currency and means of credit exchange, and could even include ‘currency’ exchanges such as Barter.

As it stands now, on any political whim, under any well massaged pretext, this force may at any time be applied to expand this policy to include ‘other’ groups, and eventualy, impact everyone in Australia be they social security recipient or not. It is a protectionist policy…worse, it we feel, the closeted IPA agenda in action.

It is clear by the manner of this amendments inclusion, meaning, the way it has been added to this CDC Bill rather than others before it or added to a Finance or Economic Bill, that government is trying to avoid wider scruinty of this policy. They are not even trying to guage public reaction, prefering not to highlight this amendment at all. So this issue we feel, is very much about precedent setting for the future. Increasing Governments powers.

Adding this amendment to this Bill ensures focus on this potentially macro-economic amendment is minimal, they ensure it is largely ignored by the wider audience, and even for those who are invested in this struggle, most are so focused on the location expansion issue not the programs financial SCOPE expansion, they havent stopped to think that that this amendment is part of a wider LNP economic agenda.

We see that they are doing more than just controlling social security recpients, or even simply trying to protect the banks from digital economies - they are using the distraction of social security systems breakdown and our national social problems to lay the legislative frame and ground work for wider economic sanctions and restictions - setting the legal precedent for aggressive economic policies that needed a foothold and foundation in law.

So please..think and read and read and think and if you an, add something to your sub about you feel about this too!

Excerpt from our draft submission ( guide only, may not be submitted as is):

“ In terms of real world impact and effect, this amendment will firstly segregate people in receipt of Social Security payments from access to the global crypto-currency economic marketplace and in doing so, it will exclude them from engaging within the currently booming non banking sector jobs market and online dedicated career networks. This will limit peoples employment options, especially within the under 36 yr old age bracket. This is contrary to the stated aims of the CDCT and the goals of this governments ‘welfare to work’ principles.

Most importantly, this amendment if applied will remove the individual right to choice in currency transacting entirely, a completely different intention and premise, leaving individuals solely dependant on banking groups and specifically government authorised institutions such as Indue Ltd.

Far beyond simple mission creep, this amendment is then a critical issue for all Australians as it changes the entire nature of the Cashless Debit Card legislation from being one of simple cash restriction for social security recipients, into one of wholesale economic segregation and limitation based on nothing more than economic and social class.

If approved, and in setting this precedent - legally justifying the removal the economic right of “some” individuals to transact freely in the marketplace in manner of their own choosing - the leap to that power one day expanding to include “all” people is one step closer.

This legislative slight of hand and obvious unchecked mission creep - an expansion within expansion - is simply unacceptable.

This entire legislation has transformed from one that held focus on the issue of social welfare, into a full scale assault upon the economic rights of taxpaying Australian citizens as a whole. It is a clear advancement of the cause of economic protectionism.”

  • SNS.

Add Comment

The Say NO Seven July 13 at 8:22 PM · ⚠🐦 Is the CDC a test pilot for a full scale run on economic freedoms in Australia? You decide.

We were going to send this out privately however we felt it was important enough to get this out there now as we know many are still writing submissions….

We have a point to note for all of the sub writers out there at this time. An issue has revealed itself within the expansion legislation that we feel you need to be aware of and may want to include in your arguments, that is the issue of digital currency as an inclusion on the prohibited list.

Wait…Before you think ’ oh that digital thing. I dont use it..it wont effect me’ think again..and again…please.

This amendment is bad not just because it ‘prohibits’ those on trials from making use of digital currencies, it is evil because it REMOVES OUR RIGHT TO CHOSE HOW WE WILL TRANSACT AT ALL and forces us to transact ONLY with banking insitutions and those institutions empowered by government.

This amendment is a significant power grab!

We’ve told people from begining we would yell out TRUCK! if we saw legislative skullduggery going on and thats all we can do here and now, yell TRUCK! IS! COMING! and hope to god people move out of the way or try and stop it.

If this amendment passes, we have no doubt it will be later used to exclude all Australians who have committed no crime, from exercising basic economic freedoms and will be used not only to shore up the failing centralised banking sector, it will block access to all evolutionary financial platforms and all the choices that go with that. It’s effectively closing the gate on a prison. It’s one step further to the totaltarian state and it wider implications are massive - whether people can comprehend them yet or not.

The LNP are intentionally using the CDC legislation process, to make significant changes to the laws that govern the WAY people transact in Australia, sneaking politically expedient economic ‘reforms’ in the back door - reforms that would otherwise be feircely challenged in the parliament, press and in wider public debate.

Depending solely on the pretext called into play, this legislation, inclusive of this amendment, could at any time be used as ‘precedent’ and expanded to force all non banking currency and trade/exchange forms nation wide through the 4 big banks doors and put an end to actual free and alternate trade. So..yeah. It’s a big deal.

We know the people behind the CDC legislation work incrementally so they don’t ‘scare the sheep’ so to speak, so any wider application or implementation of this restrictive policy would be a fair way off, however it is enough to say that if this amendment is approved, it will set a massive precedent down in law, empowering government to seize control over all currency exhanges in Australia; That’snot just bitcoin either, its every digital currency and means of credit exchange, and could even include ‘currency’ exchanges such as Barter.

As it stands now, on any political whim, under any well massaged pretext, this force may at any time be applied to expand this policy to include ‘other’ groups, and eventualy, impact everyone in Australia be they social security recipient or not. It is a protectionist policy…worse, it we feel, the closeted IPA agenda in action.

It is clear by the manner of this amendments inclusion, meaning, the way it has been added to this CDC Bill rather than others before it or added to a Finance or Economic Bill, that government is trying to avoid wider scruinty of this policy. They are not even trying to guage public reaction, prefering not to highlight this amendment at all. So this issue we feel, is very much about precedent setting for the future. Increasing Governments powers.

Adding this amendment to this Bill ensures focus on this potentially macro-economic amendment is minimal, they ensure it is largely ignored by the wider audience, and even for those who are invested in this struggle, most are so focused on the location expansion issue not the programs financial SCOPE expansion, they havent stopped to think that that this amendment is part of a wider LNP economic agenda.

We see that they are doing more than just controlling social security recpients, or even simply trying to protect the banks from digital economies - they are using the distraction of social security systems breakdown and our national social problems to lay the legislative frame and ground work for wider economic sanctions and restictions - setting the legal precedent for aggressive economic policies that needed a foothold and foundation in law.

So please..think and read and read and think and if you an, add something to your sub about you feel about this too!

Excerpt from our draft submission ( guide only, may not be submitted as is):

“ In terms of real world impact and effect, this amendment will firstly segregate people in receipt of Social Security payments from access to the global crypto-currency economic marketplace and in doing so, it will exclude them from engaging within the currently booming non banking sector jobs market and online dedicated career networks. This will limit peoples employment options, especially within the under 36 yr old age bracket. This is contrary to the stated aims of the CDCT and the goals of this governments ‘welfare to work’ principles.

Most importantly, this amendment if applied will remove the individual right to choice in currency transacting entirely, a completely different intention and premise, leaving individuals solely dependant on banking groups and specifically government authorised institutions such as Indue Ltd.

Far beyond simple mission creep, this amendment is then a critical issue for all Australians as it changes the entire nature of the Cashless Debit Card legislation from being one of simple cash restriction for social security recipients, into one of wholesale economic segregation and limitation based on nothing more than economic and social class.

If approved, and in setting this precedent - legally justifying the removal the economic right of “some” individuals to transact freely in the marketplace in manner of their own choosing - the leap to that power one day expanding to include “all” people is one step closer.

This legislative slight of hand and obvious unchecked mission creep - an expansion within expansion - is simply unacceptable.

This entire legislation has transformed from one that held focus on the issue of social welfare, into a full scale assault upon the economic rights of taxpaying Australian citizens as a whole. It is a clear advancement of the cause of economic protectionism.”

  • SNS.

2018-01-17 Indue Welfare Card

From Tina Clausen..

Everyone seems to talk about the cost of centrelink payments. Very few consider the cost of not having them or the price of having them forcibly funnelled into the coffers of a select few corporates and their vested interests. It’s time to end that ignorance.

There are over 5 million Australians receiving government payments of one kind or another and we think it would be interesting and refreshing to see just one media outlet in Australia do the simple math on the benefit of welfare recipients’ spending in the wider community and its relationship to the stability of local markets and the national economy at large. Where does the money go? To whom? What does it do once it gets there?

Outside of the social cohesion and stability paying income support payments provide us all, what is the actual fiscal return on the 160 billion dollar welfare spend to the Australian public at large? Donuts and a kinetic massage for any reporter willing to take these questions on!

We would also like to see the costings and forcecasts, were this multi billion dollar spending suddenly curtailed or reduced through welfare austerity measures.

We would like to know what the dollar cost to the average working person and to Australia’s fiscal bottom line of the added fee’s and charges would be, were this bulk of local capital suddenly funneled through a single corporation, like the one currently earmarked by the LNP to manage it all for us, at their profit?

We are also compelled to ask, just where is the ‘great fiscal burden and loss’ to the national economy the politicians are lamenting about and murdoch media are constantly harping on about? What burden? What cost? Where is the strain or burden these dillitants say is created or being borne by the Australian public?

Isn’t it the case that the national welfare budget is not just supporting those families receiving welfare payments directly - rather that they are also supporting the recipients’ landlords, local farmers, shopping centers, remedial agencies, doctors, clinics, day care centers, social welfare workers, mental health nurses and services, car park operators, small businesses and so, actually supporting the lives of regular working people all across Australia to whom this money is ultimately being given, and given back to?

When viewed in this perspective, Social Security [welfare] recipients in fact, are in fact, just third party distributors of the welfare budget, they don’t keep payments, they spend them. And unlike tax frauds and tax avoiding corporations, people receiving benefits actually pay their taxes. They contribute to the tax pool every day. A majority of recipients are also in part time or casualised work and so contribute to the economy via income taxes as well.

Yet all we see in media and LNP governemnt rhetoric, is more one eyed marginalisation, assaulting people on welfare payments as social burdens, without recognising the job they do, the role they play or the purpose they innately have in balancing Australia’s luxuries with its necessities. These people are not including them in the larger picture of Australian economy or viewing them outside the undignified view of ‘dependants’ upon it.

In media this week, the phrase ‘long term welfare dependency’ is being used as a slogan and slur yet again, when actual longer term dependancy upon income support is simply an inevitable and unavoidable reality for many people with disabilities, for the aged or very young or anyone unemployable or whos life circumstances simply do not allow a scope for a life in paid employment. How is it their fault? How is this “damaging’ us when they remain, suppliers of the cash income we depend on too?

Our stay at home child and disability carers as well, are saving Australia a living fortune in costs that could and would otherwise be imposed upon taxpayers directly without benefit. So how much more do you expect of them? What is it exactly that you expect from recipients in general? Flagellating verbal gratitude stands on every street corner? Recipients bowing to you for the simple privilege of not living in a cardboard box and contributing to YOUR social stability, welfare and social security?

It is also fact, that the majority of our national welfare spending budget heads to the aged and disabled. Often the most experienced and disciplined in need and in spending habits. If we are to rein in their payments or place them onto CDC and enforce payments 28% below the poverty line, what are we going to do next? Do we make soilent green of them all in order to buy into the LNP ruse and lie that we will all somehow save a few dollars by doing so?

Surely it will cost us more as a nation financially morally and socially to allow living conditions of our most needy to deteriorate any further than they already have or worse; cost us more than money can pay in our abandonment of our principles and our people. Abject poverty is expensive!

Like most, we are very much in support of fraud reduction and accountability of all services - however this is true only for us, when and where the same is balanced with equal and active focus and recognition of the need to target the issues of corporate welfare, ministerial entitlements rorting and wider tax avoidance scams our lax tax law permit. Issues that, when it comes to the real dollars and cents count, cost this country far more in capital loss and moral fortitude than any welfare recipient or welfare program ever could.

What’s good for one section of the community is good for all…or its not good..at all.

The simple fact is income support recipients are fellow and equal human beings, and a such, have an intrinsic value in and worth to this country - every single person from every single walk of life; every different need set. For people on welfare payments, this is also true as it relates to the wider community and taxation. We pay taxes on everything and we are basically just the middle men in the distribution of a portion of the collective taxes. We make daily decisions about spending of those taxes we receive in benefits, decisons that the government cannot or would not trust itself to address - and ought not to! In the main, we do that exceedingly well, despite the hype.

It is clear after months and years of intentional targeting and media and government bullying, that the LNP simply want to end that role and purpose centrelink recipients have held for so long. They want to remove our value and usefulness to society as anonymous distributers, and as their own reports conclude will occur under forced income managment, they want to create dependants, a generation of people incapable of self regulation, decision making and self management.

They wish to alter or to end the policy of our fair and relatively anonymous tax distribution system, and instead seek to control it and the cash economy in Australia and are willing to do or say anything to anyone standing in their way.

They are using the media and the manipulation of peoples prejudices against welfare recipients as a mask and scapegoat to do it.

Don’t let them.

Time to wake up.

So informed, you are responsible.

  • SNS2

Add Comment

From Tina Clausen..

Everyone seems to talk about the cost of centrelink payments. Very few consider the cost of not having them or the price of having them forcibly funnelled into the coffers of a select few corporates and their vested interests. It’s time to end that ignorance.

There are over 5 million Australians receiving government payments of one kind or another and we think it would be interesting and refreshing to see just one media outlet in Australia do the simple math on the benefit of welfare recipients’ spending in the wider community and its relationship to the stability of local markets and the national economy at large. Where does the money go? To whom? What does it do once it gets there?

Outside of the social cohesion and stability paying income support payments provide us all, what is the actual fiscal return on the 160 billion dollar welfare spend to the Australian public at large? Donuts and a kinetic massage for any reporter willing to take these questions on!

We would also like to see the costings and forcecasts, were this multi billion dollar spending suddenly curtailed or reduced through welfare austerity measures.

We would like to know what the dollar cost to the average working person and to Australia’s fiscal bottom line of the added fee’s and charges would be, were this bulk of local capital suddenly funneled through a single corporation, like the one currently earmarked by the LNP to manage it all for us, at their profit?

We are also compelled to ask, just where is the ‘great fiscal burden and loss’ to the national economy the politicians are lamenting about and murdoch media are constantly harping on about? What burden? What cost? Where is the strain or burden these dillitants say is created or being borne by the Australian public?

Isn’t it the case that the national welfare budget is not just supporting those families receiving welfare payments directly - rather that they are also supporting the recipients’ landlords, local farmers, shopping centers, remedial agencies, doctors, clinics, day care centers, social welfare workers, mental health nurses and services, car park operators, small businesses and so, actually supporting the lives of regular working people all across Australia to whom this money is ultimately being given, and given back to?

When viewed in this perspective, Social Security [welfare] recipients in fact, are in fact, just third party distributors of the welfare budget, they don’t keep payments, they spend them. And unlike tax frauds and tax avoiding corporations, people receiving benefits actually pay their taxes. They contribute to the tax pool every day. A majority of recipients are also in part time or casualised work and so contribute to the economy via income taxes as well.

Yet all we see in media and LNP governemnt rhetoric, is more one eyed marginalisation, assaulting people on welfare payments as social burdens, without recognising the job they do, the role they play or the purpose they innately have in balancing Australia’s luxuries with its necessities. These people are not including them in the larger picture of Australian economy or viewing them outside the undignified view of ‘dependants’ upon it.

In media this week, the phrase ‘long term welfare dependency’ is being used as a slogan and slur yet again, when actual longer term dependancy upon income support is simply an inevitable and unavoidable reality for many people with disabilities, for the aged or very young or anyone unemployable or whos life circumstances simply do not allow a scope for a life in paid employment. How is it their fault? How is this “damaging’ us when they remain, suppliers of the cash income we depend on too?

Our stay at home child and disability carers as well, are saving Australia a living fortune in costs that could and would otherwise be imposed upon taxpayers directly without benefit. So how much more do you expect of them? What is it exactly that you expect from recipients in general? Flagellating verbal gratitude stands on every street corner? Recipients bowing to you for the simple privilege of not living in a cardboard box and contributing to YOUR social stability, welfare and social security?

It is also fact, that the majority of our national welfare spending budget heads to the aged and disabled. Often the most experienced and disciplined in need and in spending habits. If we are to rein in their payments or place them onto CDC and enforce payments 28% below the poverty line, what are we going to do next? Do we make soilent green of them all in order to buy into the LNP ruse and lie that we will all somehow save a few dollars by doing so?

Surely it will cost us more as a nation financially morally and socially to allow living conditions of our most needy to deteriorate any further than they already have or worse; cost us more than money can pay in our abandonment of our principles and our people. Abject poverty is expensive!

Like most, we are very much in support of fraud reduction and accountability of all services - however this is true only for us, when and where the same is balanced with equal and active focus and recognition of the need to target the issues of corporate welfare, ministerial entitlements rorting and wider tax avoidance scams our lax tax law permit. Issues that, when it comes to the real dollars and cents count, cost this country far more in capital loss and moral fortitude than any welfare recipient or welfare program ever could.

What’s good for one section of the community is good for all…or its not good..at all.

The simple fact is income support recipients are fellow and equal human beings, and a such, have an intrinsic value in and worth to this country - every single person from every single walk of life; every different need set. For people on welfare payments, this is also true as it relates to the wider community and taxation. We pay taxes on everything and we are basically just the middle men in the distribution of a portion of the collective taxes. We make daily decisions about spending of those taxes we receive in benefits, decisons that the government cannot or would not trust itself to address - and ought not to! In the main, we do that exceedingly well, despite the hype.

It is clear after months and years of intentional targeting and media and government bullying, that the LNP simply want to end that role and purpose centrelink recipients have held for so long. They want to remove our value and usefulness to society as anonymous distributers, and as their own reports conclude will occur under forced income managment, they want to create dependants, a generation of people incapable of self regulation, decision making and self management.

They wish to alter or to end the policy of our fair and relatively anonymous tax distribution system, and instead seek to control it and the cash economy in Australia and are willing to do or say anything to anyone standing in their way.

They are using the media and the manipulation of peoples prejudices against welfare recipients as a mask and scapegoat to do it.

Don’t let them.

Time to wake up.

So informed, you are responsible.

  • SNS2













Bookmark this on Delicious

SEO-AU Links Best INFP Websites - Click here to Vote for this site!