I dont want to live in Australia anymore. Dont drink, dont smoke, dont hang out with bad men or women, dont do drugs, manage my finances better than most… own my own home (modest as it is), pay my bills on time…
this sucks.
1 Like
Have you considered NZ?
Pension and other considerations are discussed in the following.
There are other nations that might appeal, the opportunity to learn a new language, high community standards set from top of government down, and the prospects of much less political indecision.
P.S. off topic a little.
Australia (well at least NSW Vic) got the Federal Government that the majority of Queensland electors wanted. Perhaps the trial should have been restricted to Qld first? I don’t recollect which promise had the Indue Card. But, being a Queenslander might explain the memory lapse! 
2 Likes
Frequently, especially the south island. However, already being on a pension, my finances and health are such that I would find the move unaffordable, and unduly stressful. I do appreciate the link, though.
2 Likes
I’m not affected by the Indue card (not
getting any welfare) but I do object to the
paternalistic attitude of attaching conditions to welfare payments.
Don’t leave the country @SueW
(Choice Community wouldn’t be the same
without you).
Until we have a vote we have a voice.
We can make our opposition known
to our members of parliament and various
groups which are unhappy with the set-up.
Don’t give up yet, Sue!
3 Likes
I shan’t… I’m not really a quitter. Thanks for your kind words 
2 Likes
Seems Indue is yet another brilliant government populist program done with all the forethought, foresight, and intelligence of the MTM NBN and so many other projects pushed through for the benefit of its shareholders (er I mean vested interests and donors).
4 Likes
Hhhmmmm…the loophole being if they have their own personal credit card (in addition to the Indue card), they could still buy restricted items using this credit card. I also expect that the part of the benefit which isn’t quarantined (viz. cash component) and used to purchase restricted items. The amount quarantined by the Indue card still can’t be used for such purposes.
I also expect that if someone with an Indue card got money as a Christmas gift, it could be spent on restricted items.
I am not sure if this is news or trying to make a sensationalist story out of nothing. The Indue card is about quarantining the benefit for essential goods and services…and from this story, this function has not changed. What people do with their own money outside the Indue card is their business and it would be a sorry state of affairs if the government decided to manage all finances including gifts, money from selling say a car or one’s credit card purchases.
1 Like
I interpreted the report as a method of money laundering that works to circumvent the restrictions. No more and no less.
5 Likes
Yes I agree, the quarantine fails as the reserved amount can be moved to pay the CC debt. Thus if you have a CC (how many on welfare long term would be able to get one is an issue) you can go buy any goods you like then have the Indue Card’s balance moved to pay the CC. The overseers of the Indue Card may question if a large amount was moved but if it was regular and spent at the right store or they took a cash advance then Indue would not be able to ascertain what was purchased.
4 Likes
My suspicion is that those on long term welfare who already had a card when they encountered hard times still have one, especially if they were no fee.
3 Likes
I didn’t realise that credit card debt could be paid off by the Indue card…it appears that debt (and rent) is paid off using the monies which would otherwise be added to the Indue card by the governnent.
This could be easily changed by excluding credit card debit from the 80%.
I wonder how many do and whether this is a real or manufacturered issue.
I suspect that those who do have a card obtained at the time of past employment, they either would have a large debt (card maxed out) or manage their debt responsibly. I wonder if those who manage their debt responsibly would be those who indulge in excess in restricted activities. It doesn’t quite make sense.
1 Like
I often wonder the same thing about all the viruses reported, in a practical sense.
I am sure it doesn’t since it is reported as a hole in the system, not a proven or demonstrated widespread problem at this time.
3 Likes
Prosperity Theology tells us that the righteous will prosper. It follows therefore that the poor are unworthy.*-
*- and no, I don’t believe it.
2 Likes
I feel very conflicted about this topic. I see and agree with all the comments about Orwellian control of our lives and lack of privacy. On the other hand I know of cases where it would have been a godsend.
This information is many years out of date but is offered as an example where payment of benefits unencumbered had the perverse consequence of leaving somebody much worse off.
Unemployment benefits (as they were called) for a family were paid to the breadwinner. Typically this was the male and the woman and children were treated as dependants. There were cases where the husband got the fortnightly check and proceeded to poor it into his addiction leaving the family literally starving. Under the law of the time the cheque could not be split between them. This left the wife with only bad choices.
- Leave with the children and claim for support in her own name, with no money and only the family home to live in this wasn’t always possible.
- Go cap in hand to non government charities whose resources were limited and who often prioritised those who were not receiving any benefits at all.
- Do nothing.
The women in these cases were not always very competent and could not cope and the silent victims were (as always) the children.
The law may well have changed in the meantime to make this particular problem go away but it isn’t hard to picture modern situations that are parallel.
Many middle class and well off people have no idea what it is like to live in such circumstances. Unless you have been involved you cannot appreciate that there is a slice of this lucky county where physical illness, mental illness, addiction, lack of education and saleable skills, bad work history, lack of English and historical poverty intersect. Persons suffering several of these problems fall into a whirlpool where one intensifies or creates the next.
They spend their life in the system. They don’t always make good choices. It is always assumed they can pull themselves out of the whirlpool, some can, many cannot. Allowing them to spend as they please, despite all the loss of freedoms, does not always have good outcomes.
I can only hope some wisdom is applied to the scope and administration of such a scheme. Given the Canberra bubble that supports the punitive treatment of welfare dependents and the ideology that too often blames the victim I don’t see much hope of that.
6 Likes
For those that need the card to protect or control their finances, I agree it may be the answer they need. The spread of the Card to those who do control their money is the problem, it shouldn’t be a blanket application. Attached as an issue is the cost of providing and maintaining the Card and this has not been well answered by the LNP Government (including that there was not a robust tender process or why it was best provided by an outside business).
The blanket approach of Card use appears not to have worked the way it is being reported by the Government. The reviews of it’s processes have shown a lack of properly undertaken statistical analysis and the reviews have stated because of a lack of proper data the analysis done is not reliable and many of the outcomes are not even able to be tested. Another issue has been that consultation required has been selective and in some cases avoided with involved Community stake holders.
Another thing that would help address many problems is giving people financial literacy education/counselling. This can be done either in Schools or giving charitable organisations and similar, more means to provide the education to those outside of the school system.
3 Likes
I share @syncretic thoughts.
I suppose the challenge is to know who potentially can manage their financial affairs well ensuring that priority is given to support the essentials of life (shelter, food) rather than the non-essentials (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, narcotics etc). I suspect that if one is asked whether they manage their financial affairs well, almost all would say yes even if it isn’t the case.
For someone to independently check that one does manage one’s financial affairs well would require extensive instruction by the government (or a ‘consultant’) on one’s life as well as ongoing intrusions to ensure that there is ongoing good financial management.
I personally think the intrusion that would be required to verify good financial management would be significantly greater than the inconvenience of the Indue Card, as one would expect that every purchase is scrutinised and questions asked when such purchases are deemed to be inappropriate. One sees how well the Robodebt system worked, imagine the challenges of running such a system.
The alternative system would be to not have any scrutiny and go back to the days when one can chose what to do with their unemployment benefits, even if these unemployment benefits don’t benefit those within a family where they should.
It is a hard answer/solution, but any option has barbs and not straightforward for those involved.
1 Like
Having worked in Social Security sectors within the Government I can advise you that it is very easy to determine who is money wise and who isn’t. The staff who deal with the clients are very aware of those who struggle to manage their financial affairs and do referrals all the time to welfare agencies for those clients.
If currently a person seeks to come off Indue the intrusion is huge and even if the person is found to be able and are managing their finances they may and are likely not to be released from the program (and the process can take a very long time to create the decision).
4 Likes
I see so many issues that I reckon the whole project should be abandoned.
First off, it’s indiscriminate. There’s no evidence that significant numbers are mismanaging their benefits or rorting the system.
It’s compulsory. There should be easy opt-out provisions. If it’s really necessary (and cost effective - etc, etc) then it should be opt-in.
The motivations behind quarantining parts of the benefit are questionable. It looks more like punishment than anything else. The card seems to be a sop to Conservative fears that somebody might get something that the Conservative thinks they don’t deserve. It’s also redolent of theological beliefs that the needy aren’t prosperous because they’re not righteous, so they can’t be trusted.
Then there’s the question: why Indue? The card isn’t accepted at many of the places where it will be needed. The process by which the contract was awarded looks, on the surface, nothing less than corrupt.
The project, as it is, should be scrapped. If there’s a genuine case, then a widely-accepted card might be implemented. The card should be offered as an option when the need is found, not compulsory.
[edit]
And I just found this. If any part of it is even remotely true, then we might have a war on our hands.
3 Likes
The mere fact that an LNP donor is making more money off it than its worth is a very good reason NOT to pursue it. They don’t want people opting out because they wont make profits. Its all very clear to me, it has everything to do with profiting from others’ distress and incapacity and nothing at all to do with helping those who need help.
4 Likes
Interesting viewpoint. It must be a struggle for those who see double standards once again applied across the nation.
It seems very wrong to single out whole communities and discriminate on the basis of the perceived behaviour of a lesser number.
Consider:
Fitting all motor vehicles with alcohol ignition interlocks would also aid the management of the drink driving risk across the nation. The benefit of preventing offences before they occur rather than singling out repeat offenders significant in the lives saved. And the inconvenience to those who do not drink minor in comparison to lives saved, trauma averted, hospital beds freed.
I doubt we have the fortitude as a nation to impose similar high moral standards to other high risk behaviours. And to ask all to accept that imposition for the benefit of all those likely to be affected by drink driving incidents. That we don’t know who the innocent parties might be in any future drink driving incident, perhaps morally there is a much greater imperative to act indiscriminately?
4 Likes
