Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
Income management - coming our way one day?
Australian social security dept (Centrelink) have been running this initiative for a while, but now it’s being extended to Sydney to lots of protests. The scheme prescribes what benefits can actually be spent on, with the emphasis on food for children, clothing etc. as opposed to fags and booze….
Can see this appealing to IDS. Only snag is that it relies on an electronic card system (the BasicsCard) which might be costly to set up - unlike Oz we are hard up, of course.
The pdf file explains how the scheme works. No stigma there then.
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/income-management?utm_id=7
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/spw/customer/publications/resources/co617/co617-1006en.pdf
The fact sheet says that you can put some of your income on the card. This suggests discretion and is a way of self discipline so you ‘lock away’ some of your money for essentials in case you get tempted to blow it on booze/drugs/gambling/vice. Anyone know different?
From the guidance
“You may be referred for Income Management by:
• an Australian Government Department of Human Services Social Worker
• a case worker from your local child-protection authority
• the Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission.”
Out of interest, does anyone know the grounds for referral?
Might be in here!
http://guidesacts.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-11.html
But not had time to look
A person is subject to income management under the Vulnerable Welfare Payment Recipients Measure if:
* at the test time, the person is an eligible recipient of a category H welfare payment,
* the person’s usual place of residence is within a declared income management area,
* the person is determined to be a vulnerable welfare payment recipient, in accordance with SS(Admin)Act section 123UGA,
* if the person has a payment nominee, the nominee is not an excluded payment nominee, and
* the person is not subject to income management under the Cape York or Child Protection Measures.
Vulnerability includes factors such as “financial crisis, economic abuse and homelessness/risk of homelessness.”
Yep, it’s in there alright. You can see the objectives behind it, child protection and protection of vulnerable adults. Its, therefore, difficult to comment without knowing anything about Australian Social Services. The referral scheme does not demand that all the person’s Social Security and Family Allowance go on the card. The guidance suggests any thing between 50-100%. I suppose, like anything else, its fairness and success, while ensuring dignity of claimants and prevention of stigmatization, depends largely on how it’s administered.
I don’t necessarily oppose it in principle where child protection issues are present as long as it’s not punitive in operation or consequence but I will defer to child potection experts on that one. However, I would oppose such a system solely where it applies to adults not necessarily acting in their own best interests or on the long term unemployed, where no children are involved. There are other ways of dealing with that such as creating employment opportunities, available suitable training, proper treatment programmes, provision of affordable housing etc.
Yes, I sit a bit on the fence as for alot of people they manage their benefits perfectly well, however we all know of clients that have a nice leather sofa , big tv, sky and internet, drink and smoke and the children look Dickensian and exist on toast, sausage rolls and chips if not for their free school meal.
Yes, I sit a bit on the fence as for alot of people they manage their benefits perfectly well, however we all know of clients that have a nice leather sofa , big tv, sky and internet, drink and smoke and the children look Dickensian and exist on toast, sausage rolls and chips if not for their free school meal.
Yes and that example can also apply to lots of people not in receipt of benefits, who exist on high cost credit and pay day loans etc. Should income management also apply to those “feckless” individuals? It’s a slippery road in my opinion…..
Why pick on the poor?
Why not impose it on anyone who gets any element of public subsidy who misspends their money:
Farmers driving around in costly 4x4s funded by EU subsidies, wealthy people whose future pensions are subsidised by tax relief on pension contributions living in over large houses, bankers bailed out by taxpayers wasting money on champagne, extravagant corporate entertainment by welfare to work and outsourcing companies, etc.
...(Ferengi Rules of Acquisition - 261.: A wealthy man can afford everything except a conscience)
Rules of the Left - 261: A left wing man can afford a conscience when wealthy.
Now if only it had been around to help MPs to spend their expenses appropriately….
Yes, I sit a bit on the fence as for alot of people they manage their benefits perfectly well, however we all know of clients that have a nice leather sofa , big tv, sky and internet, drink and smoke and the children look Dickensian and exist on toast, sausage rolls and chips if not for their free school meal.
Yes and that example can also apply to lots of people not in receipt of benefits, who exist on high cost credit and pay day loans etc. Should income management also apply to those “feckless” individuals? It’s a slippery road in my opinion…..
But those individuals are not reliant on the state for their income so I don’t think that’s a reasonable comparison.
The sentiment should be directed towards those companies that offer their services to those who may not have the means to repay purely in the pursuit of profit. (Ferengi Rules of Acquisition - 261.: A wealthy man can afford everything except a conscience)
Yes, I sit a bit on the fence as for alot of people they manage their benefits perfectly well, however we all know of clients that have a nice leather sofa , big tv, sky and internet, drink and smoke and the children look Dickensian and exist on toast, sausage rolls and chips if not for their free school meal.
Yes and that example can also apply to lots of people not in receipt of benefits, who exist on high cost credit and pay day loans etc. Should income management also apply to those “feckless” individuals? It’s a slippery road in my opinion…..
But those individuals are not reliant on the state for their income so I don’t think that’s a reasonable comparison.
The sentiment should be directed towards those companies that offer their services to those who may not have the means to repay purely in the pursuit of profit. (Ferengi Rules of Acquisition - 261.: A wealthy man can afford everything except a conscience)
Hi Tony. I’m not much of a Trekky myself- more of a Star Wars man! I prefer this quote from Obi Wan Kenobi.
“Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.”
I guess it depends to what extent one considers mandatory state intervention to be a desirable or effective way in which to coerce people into being “responsible”. My reference to “feckless” individuals was of course a facetious reference to the way in which increasingly the media and government refer to people who often end up in financial difficulties mainly through various changes of circumstances and often no fault of their own and then either try to borrow their way out of trouble or simply do not know how to budget effectively when in financial dire straits. I agree that high cost credit should be far better regulated, but to many it is still an essential source of credit and I guess until it’s regulated more effectively, better that than approaching your local loan shark.
Whether people are reliant on the state for their income or not, one could argue that the cost to society of a spiral of indebtedness, repossessions, homelessness, social services intervention, health, police etc is one that needs to be tackled at the root of the problem not just dealing with the effects. I agree with Paul when he says that there are better ways of tackling the problem and also how much of a problem is it anyway weighed against the cost of setting such a scheme up in the first place? Some of the best budgeters I have known are clients on benefits! Also as Neil says above why pick on the poor, why pick on people reliant on state benefits? If the argument is that people need to be made to spend more responsibly by limiting what they can spend on “bad” things, then surely this should also apply to people not on benefits who also make “bad” choices and cost us “the taxpayer” as a result.
Reading the info on the Australian website it seems clear that in parts this is a voluntary scheme, with mandatory referrals made in particular situations such as where there are child protection issues, but it would not be too much of a leap to suggest that this scheme will eventually become mandatory for everyone on benefits there. If this Australian model is imported by our government, then in my opinion it will be a slippery slope and another example of the nanny state dictating even more what the poor and marginalised of our society can and cannot do, whilst allowing others to continue unabated with reckless decisions and reckless spending that ultimately costs the tax payers a lot more in the long run. Next stop a Poor Law fit for the 21st Century- let’s start refurbishing those workhouses now!!
Yes, Neil raised a telling point about other recipients of public spending. Who next? Tax Credits recipients? Good point also about a new poor law. I’ve said several times on here that this government seems hell bent on dragging us back to the nineteenth century. And, on the budgeting point, Owen Jones in his book “Chavs, the demonization of the working class” makes the same point that the poor are often much better at budgeting than the well off precisely because they have so little margin for error.
It would be helpful if the government actually reminded themselves of why the workhouses failed. They’d probably save millions of pounds in the process.
In research for his (Owen Jones’s) book the number one priority that interviewees highlighted that would deal most with problems of poverty, deprivation and social tension in their neighbourhoods was, more affordable housing.
Taxpayers’ money used to fund exotic lifestyles.
The Daily Muckracker can to day reveal that millions of pounds of hard working families’ taxes are being used to subsidise alcohol fuelled orgies abroad for those working on lucrative government contracts. Receipts have been submitted for lavish travel expenses, sumptuous banquets and huge bar bills. A source told this reporter “this kind of stuff has been going on for years and everyone has been turning a blind eye to it. These are not isolated incidents. It is part of a culture that goes right to the very top”. He continued, “it is absolutely scandalous that in an age of austerity when hard working families are having their benefits cut while being told that there is no alternative, that public money can be squandered in this way with no accountability. Everybody knows about it but no one seems to care”.
Emma Harrison is 121.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/06/champagne-culture-claims-emma-harrison-a4e
Oh for Heavens Sake. Under what circumstances, exactly, could it have been necessary for A4E to hold a conference in Monaco??
Chortle. I can actually visualize the pen being thrown down on the desk in disgust.
LOL!!!
(Now where did I throw that pen??)
Income Management already exists in the UK for asylum seekers. The “Azure card” restricts what can be bought, and where from, meaning that applicants can’t get cash to get to the shops, to appointments, etc. Despite all its failures, I can see that it wouldn’t be a big leap to introduce it across the board.
http://www.irr.org.uk/news/a-cashless-society-the-other-side-of-the-coin/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/06/asylum-seekers-azure-card
Hi Tony. I’m not much of a Trekky myself- more of a Star Wars man! I prefer this quote from Obi Wan Kenobi. “Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.”
Sci-fi must just be a small sideline for you… It was Yoda it was mmMMmm :-)
You got me there Tony :)