Centrelink will have a new big stick

Why is a policy intended to protect children planned for the childless?

The Federal government announced last year that they plan to stop the racist policy of punishing the Aboriginal welfare clients in the Northern Territory for being poor as established by the Coalition, and instead punish ALL Australian Centrelink clients for being poor, regardless of race. This gives Centrelink staff a big stick to threaten you with if you dare to complain about incompetence or pettiness or abuse from Centrelink. Julia Gillard supports this policy.

The "Income Management"or "income quarantine" policy means that if you have been identified by a Centrelink staff member as "vulnerable", then they can steal HALF your income to be replaced by food stamps that only work at designated shops in distant suburbs for a shopping list chosen for you by a Centrelink staff member. This "vulnerability" has a review process, but its a fake one because there is no process for you to leave "Income Management" by becoming "exempt".

The original paternalistic intention was to protect people who were being robbed by family members, or who had an alcohol or tobacco addiction from hurting not only themselves but their children. The pornography censorship was just what the religious zealots could get away with for now, they'd like it extended to all citizens without debate. The Coalition thought that food stamps for a shop you can't walk to, would make sure the children in those families would get enough to eat. It hasn't been implemented intelligently, and it's a hammer that hasn't fixed every case of financial exploitation. Many victims discovered that Centrelink had chosen a shop that needed a long car drive by people who didn't own cars, and which had no public transport available, or for which they couldn't pay in food stamps. What were they supposed to do?

Some didn't get their food stamps on time due to stuff ups. 59% of people had major problems using the food stamps.The evidence is that the experiment failed.

An important difference between the Northern Territory and the rest of Australia is rent. Most of the "Income Management" victims were living on government properties where rent is controlled. The rest of Australia pays private rent in cities, and the amount is rarely less than 50% of your income. Rents are high, and NewStart and Disability pensions are low. Centrelink only pays $100 per 2 weeks towards your rent, the rest must be paid yourself. This becomes impossible if half your income is debased as food stamps. Then you become homeless.

So how will Centrelink staff determine that you, as a recipient of say, a Disability Support Pension are a "vulnerable person" who needs to have "Income Management" imposed on you? They have a checklist, which includes using the services that they urge you to use. If you use CentrePay to automatically pay your bills, you will be flagged as vulnerable, because you might be afraid to pay them in cash. Income management for you. If you DON'T use Centrepay, then perhaps you are not capable of paying your bills on time because you were not using an automatic system. Income Management for you.

If a third party contacts Centrelink about you, you are checked as vulnerable. Potential employers are encouraged to contact Centrelink to ask about you, so this happens a lot. If you have a password-protected Centrelink web account, who are you hiding from? You must be vulnerable, and need Income Management. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Once you're put on Income Management, you are harassed to death by budget micro-management. Have you changed your expenses? Have you not changed your expenses? The hilarious one is "does the customer have financial goals and plan to achieve them"? How on Earth can this apply to someone one a Disability Support Pension who has had 50% of their cash stolen under Income Management? You can't bank food stamps! You can't shop around for bargains. You can't even join a food co-op to save money.

Attendance at a Money Management course is farcical for people who are receiving less than half the minimum wage. You can't even budget when the prices change all the time.

When you live below the poverty level, you just have to "live poor". Living Poor means you buy as little as possible that you don't absolutely need, you shop often, but only buy when prices have come down for sales or loss leaders. You put non-perishable needs like clothes and electronics off as long as you can, and wait for a bargain, or until your old ones fall apart. You don't buy books or DVDs, you borrow from the library, or friends. You check the op shops for working household goods going cheap. This is a different mentality to having a wage and then deciding your spending allowance on every necessary item, and what luxury items you can afford with your discretionary spending. A weekly or monthly budget makes no sense if you're waiting to pounce on a random yearly sale, or plain lucky bargain.

The Labor Government policy, like the racist Coalition policy now in place, is aimed at parents receiving welfare payments, who might not spend enough on their children's needs, but it will be applied to childless welfare recipients as well. There is nothing in the policy to restrict this punishment to parents. This is the same thinking as the Government's Internet censorship policy which aims to protect children, even in households where no children exist. For the protection of non-existent children, disabled people could be found to be Vulnerable Welfare Payment Recipients, and lose the half of their income they use to pay rent. They will have to justify why they went to the local shop to buy an expensive tube of toothpaste when they ran out, instead of waiting for the next day and shopping for a few hours to get cheaper toothpaste an approved supermarket.

Beyond the loss of dignity, privacy and independence, there are also the issues of how the shops that will accept the food stamps are chosen, and why Welfare Payment Recipients have to miss out on cheaper prices at shops that Centrelink hasn't made a deal with. In the NT it was Woolies, what if the shop next door has a clearance sale? This policy won't let me choose how and where I spend my money. If the Prime Minister's door is only open to the Billionaires and not the poor, then Australia has become a blatant plutocracy. The wealthy not only have the privilege of choosing how and where they spend their money, but even how much tax they will pay.

Links:
http://www.alp.org.au/node/13973
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/families/progserv/welfarereform/Pages/new_income_mngnt.aspx
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/families/pubs/Pages/instruments_consult.aspx
http://www.treatyrepublic.net/content/macklin-dismisses-research-and-soldiers-income-management-roll-out
http://www.welfarerights.org.au/Shared%20Documents/Income%20Management%20Policy%20Outlines.pdf
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2009/11/26/income-management-a-worry-for-mental-health/
http://acoss.org.au/images/uploads/ACOSS_response_to_draft_IM_policy_guidelines.pdf
http://www.thegovmonitor.com/health/australia-introduces-new-income-management-scheme-to-protect-children-16666.html
http://www.communitydoor.org.au/node/677
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/27/labor-brings-welfare-quarantining-to-a-centrelink-near-you/
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=17976
http://newmatilda.com/2009/02/13/nt-intervention-lets-try-sydney
http://newmatilda.com/2009/02/13/fortnight-intervention
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/nt-policy-failing-the-children-20100613-y5us.html?comments=19
http://newmatilda.com/2010/02/18/not-working
http://www.getup.org.au/blogs/view.php?id=760
http://aboriginalrightscoalition.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/nter-submission-from-the-arc.doc