The SAY NO SEVEN Community Submission : “Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018”

The Say NO Seven Community thanks the Secretary and welcomes the opportunity to make comments to the Senate Affairs Legislation Committee in relation to the above inquiry.
The Say No Seven is a 2200 person strong public online community with an average daily post reach of 7,000 views and an issues post reach of between 30,000-110,000 views. In two and a half years of community liaison, issues writing and active on and off-line protest we have come to represent an authoritative voice and hub of community opposition to the concept and practice of forced income management (Cashless Debit Card).

 

The Say No Seven Community opposes the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 in the strongest possible terms.

 

The primary features of this Bill are:

Amendment 124PQA – To alter economic restrictions and include digital currencies in the prohibited items list.

Amendment 124PD(1) – To expand the roll out of the Cashless Debit Card Trial [CDCT] to the Hinkler Electorate QLD Australia, removing essential trial location limitations put in place by this Senate in February 2018.

Amendment 124PE – To deputise/empower any group of people, regardless of qualification or experience, to act as an authorised “community body”.
1. Amendment 124PQA: The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, Section: 124PQA “Cash-like products” seeks to include the unspecified term “digital currencies” into the list of prohibited items.
This amendment infringes heavily upon the natural economic rights of Australian taxpaying citizens who are Social Security recipients as these rights are defined by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Part 1 Article 1:

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
This amendment also activates:

• The Right to equality and non-discrimination (ICCPR Article 2.1, 26; ICESCR Article 2.1; CERD; CEDAW; CAT; CROC; CRPD) and,

• Non-diminution of rights (ICCPR Article 5; ICESCR Article 5)

We assert:
a) That the inclusion of digital currencies on prohibited lists bears no relation to the stated cash control objectives of the CDCT.
b) That exclusion from the digital currency marketplace is a breach of economic, social and cultural rights and is radically discriminating against Social Security recipients as a cohort.
c) That digital currencies are part of the digital /online world schema and therefore represent an essential generational and cultural artefact in their own right.
d) That this amendment will impact significantly upon the under 36 year old cohort and others, that may require digital currency access for self advancement and self maintenance ie: the unemployed and under-employed and persons with mental illness.
e) That this amendment is changing the entire nature of the Cashless debit Card legislation from being one of cash restriction for purpose, to one of wholesale economic segregation.
f) That this amendment seeks to remove the right of individuals to transact external to the banking sector in a manner of their own choosing.

On top of the impacts of current CDCT related restrictions on borrowing, lending, assets trading and access to second hand marketplaces- conditions that already fall outside of the CDCTs stated intention of only stopping purchases of alcohol and gambling products, we find the inclusion of this amendment within this Bill, evidence of yet another ideologically motivated imposition protecting corporate entities [the banking sector] in disregard of its impact upon the social welfare of forced trial participants.
This amendment and inclusion of digital currencies in prohibited items lists, bears no relevance to any of the stated social welfare aims and objectives of the CDCT. It is an unjustified, and   unwarranted intrusion of political control over the private economic lives and protected rights of Social Security recipients.

Should this Bill pass, this amendment will set an Australia wide legislative precedent for unilateral and forced economic exclusion from the non banking sector marketplace.
It marks a significant escalation of the intentional segregation of Social Security recipients themselves from the wider community and economic sphere, and undermine their rights and responsibilities as free citizens – two realities better understood in terms of their relationship to apartheid legislation circa South Africa 1970.

The intended social welfare outcomes of the CDCT are well described within the Cashless Debit Card legislation and verifiable within the changes already made to the Social Security Act 1999. The Department is on record as clearly stating that the intention of the CDCT is to quarantine 80% of CASH Social Security payments as a means to resolve alcohol, gambling and drug abuse problems in effected communities.
This amendment is therefore, a midstream alteration to that existing pretext and impacts the entire CDC legislation as much as Australian economic reform going forward.
In terms of real world impact and effect, this amendment will completely segregate people in receipt of Social Security payments from access to the crypto-currency economic marketplace and in doing so, it will also exclude them from engaging within the currently booming non banking sector jobs market and online dedicated digital career networks.
It seeks to remove peoples choices beyond the stated aims of the program, reducing both employment options and undermining the right to choice in currency transacting on fundamental levels the Department is not currently empowered to do in Law, let alone this legislation.
This amendment transforms the entire CDC legislation from one that held focus on the issue of social welfare and selected groups, into a full scale assault upon the economic rights of taxpaying Australian citizens as a whole. It is an issue of serious and large scale economic reform being concealed in supplementary legislation, intended not to be noticed. The precedent this amendment will set into law, will have far wider implications ongoing, for everyone.
Returning to the scope of this submission, it is clear to us that in removing the un/under employed from access to such a lucrative job market alone, stands in contradiction to both the goals of the CDCT itself and the Departments wider “welfare to work” principles.

We have also had significant feedback from our community members that this amendment will also negatively impact persons with mental health illness as a sub-cohort, especially those persons experiencing CPTSD, who, in the reduction of face to face clinical service opportunities in the current climate, are more likely to engage in online activities such as counselling and online therapy programs and therapeutic games as clinical and non clinical support measures – many of these services require access to alternative currency and digital currency based applications.
2. Amendment 124PD(1): The Hinkler region community has not given its consent to any expanded roll out of the CDCT in their region.

To the contrary, the Hinkler electorate community has been very clear in its public opposition and have made significant efforts on both public and political levels to demonstrate this opposition.

Community consent for this fourth trial site expansion has not been achieved as required by the legislation.

The Say No Seven, as a Community group embracing several hundred Hinkler region members:

• Support and amplify the visible and vocal opposition to any CDC roll out in the Hinkler Community that has, for a sustained period of time [14 months] shown that there is little active community support for the CDCT beyond the ranks of politically aligned corporate and otherwise invested entities. It has been demonstrated clearly by petition and protests made by opposition voices that the community does not want the trial to go ahead and that community members have not given prior and informed consent.

• We support the withdrawal of prior support for the CDCT in Hinkler region by several local agencies and service providers, who’s testimony is on video record and submitted to this Senate Inquiry in link form below. [1]

• We reject any notion it is acceptable for business groups, local councils, so called and unspecified ‘community leaders’ and politicians to supply consent third party on behalf of individual Centrelink payment recipients. We can find no justification or legal precedent under the Social Security Act nor in any Human Rights and Non Discrimination legislation that would legally empower any member of a community to give third party consent for any other individual external to the Mental Health Act and State Trustee exemptions.

• The lack of first party consent within the Hinkler region along with general community opposition, has been clearly represented to this Senate before. [Tabled testimony and documents supplied to the CDC Senate inquiry Canberra November 2017]
Furthermore, the active exclusion of Social Security recipients themselves by Keith Pitt MP, from local area meetings and decision making discussions about the intended trial, represent a failure of the ‘community consultation process’ and stand as evidence of an increasingly patronising, punitive and top down approach in action.

• We contend that obtuse amendments empowering Community Panels process within the CDC legislation are an unacceptable infringement upon Human Rights, Economic, Privacy and Non Discrimination legislations and remain a wholly unacceptable and unaccountable process that exposes Social Security recipients to invasions of personal privacy and previously unheard of levels of psychological and civil liberties abuse as noted in our prior submission to the 2017 Senate inquiry. [6]

Continuation of the Communities Panels process in the Hinkler electorate risks increasing the consumer base placed at risk of the impacts of malicious abuses of power and position and all social and legal consequences ongoing the same implies.

• We actively refute claims made by the State representative Keith Pitt MP of ‘wide community consultation’ and ‘overwhelming community support’ as demonstrably unsubstantiated, intentionally deceptive and highly politically motivated. These claims are not inclusive of the views or voices of opposition groups or representative of those directly impacted ie: Social Security recipients themselves, and they stand in contradiction to evidence already presented to this Senate in Nov 2017.

• We submit to this committee now [to accompany the 850+ organic signatures already collected from the Hinkler community presented to Senate in Nov 2017] the results of our own online petition to the Minister, a further 2700 organic signatures collected by us, that clearly demonstrate a significant presence of community opposition to Cashless Debit Card Trials. [2]

 
3. Amendment 124PE: “The Minister by notifiable instrument, authorise a body, whether incorporated or unincorporated, as a community body, in relation to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, if the body provides, or intends to provide, services relating to the care, protection, welfare or safety of adults, children or families residing in that area.”

 
This legislation seeks to empower the use of a new term “community body” and, selectively to the Hinkler Electorate, seeks to engage unspecified and we must assume, hand picked groups of people with authorities and permissions they presently do not have, to act in the Departments stead of matter of the CDC or in some other as yet unspecified way in the lives of Social Security recipients in the region.

 

We hold that this inclusion has been required at all, only due to the large and vocal opposition to the CDCT in the area and the recent withdrawal of support by community service groups and service providers. It stands as further evidence that widespread community opposition does exist and that no registered group has already formed willing to retain this title or authority.

 

We vehemently challenge the notion that simply being in a position of power within a community in any way qualifies a person in any to act on behalf of any other member of that community without their consent, or permits them to give implied consent on behalf of any other person of the community based on position or presumptions of their behaviour or morality ‘ as a class’.

 

Social Security recipients are citizens, taxpayers and voters; community members and contributors. They are not suspects or criminals. They cannot be reliably judged as a single class and then presumed to be of a certain character or to collectively be afflicted with a certain type of disease or social nature due solely to that financial position.

 

As was made all too clear given the recent Royal Commission into institutionalised sex abuse and the recent arrest of a person from the Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet on child rape charges in remote regional Australia, many of those that may otherwise fall under the term” Good Community Leaders” have often proven themselves among the worst of the Australian criminal class and offenders. We hold that his needless codifying of rank and privilege external to earned privilege is dangerous, presumption and immoral.

 

We therefore reject this amendment outright on the following basis’:

a) The amendment seeks to empower civilians or corporate entities under law to act in the lives of Social Security recipients, without reference to what powers are being given or what restraints of power are to be put in place.

b) The amendment is dangerously obtuse and so open to structural and systemic abuse;

ie: It provides no protective requirement, charter/statement of intention, nor any mission/qualifying principles whatever.
c) The amendment empowers potentially unqualified groups of individuals outside of the Social Welfare sector to make decisions or act on behalf of the most vulnerable and at risk people in society without any apparent requirement for accountability, education minimums or obligation to the Senate.
d) The amendment is based in assumption, and exacerbates the myth of the “good community leader”. [3]
e) The amendment leaves the door open for politically motivated and political party aligned/obliged groups to act upon opposition groups with seeming impunity, and will see individuals established as community authorities without any electoral process or community consent to the same thus undermining the authority of local area councils and the social services frame works already in place while avoiding all accountability and responsibility under those same frameworks.
f) This amendment would permit the department to manufacture the appearance of community consent where no actual community consent exists.

 

Further:

We call the inquiries attention to the following major concerns:

• Aside from the larger issue of the privatisation of the National Social Security payment systems via outsourcing of these systems to the Indue Ltd corporation, we draw the committees attention to the issue of the privatisation of Social Security payments themselves and the loss of legal authority over payments.

 

We assert, that by placing funds ordinarily earmarked for the private bank accounts of Social Security recipients into Indue Ltds accounts, the Department is circumventing Social Security Law intended to protect recipients from predatory practices, without concurrent explanation or amendment changes to empower these laws existent within this or any CDC related legislation. These changes have certainly has not been released to the parliament, media or made public. Yet they exist within the current legislative framework.

 

We refer committee to the Guide to Social Security Law Version 1.241, released 5th February 2018, and to Article 8.4.3 “Protection of Payment” therein which states:

“Once a social security payment has been paid into a recipient’s bank account it is no longer a social security payment under the Act. It becomes part of the recipient’s funds”.
However, despite the existence of this law, the redirection of payments to Indue Ltd itself for third party ‘management’ means that these lawful entitlements no longer legally become the property of Social Security recipients at all under the CDC/CDCT legislation.
Instead, these funds belong solely to Indue Ltd and the entire system of Social Security payments is effectively transformed into a system of Credit.

 

This issue has never been addressed by this Senate and we are compelled to ask, why?

 

We assert that transferring individual Social Security payments to this corporation is a breach of Article 8.4.3 “ Protection of payment” and that the Department, are literally handing hundreds of millions and potentially multiple billions of dollars in what they are calling “free money” [in reality, our taxes paid in lawful benefits] to a politically friendly, unsecured corporate entity, that remains unaccountable to almost all industry codes and remains unaccountable to this Senate itself.

 

We find this usurping of the Social Security Laws that are specifically intended to protect recipients from just this form of predatory trade practice, and this action as a whole that completely strips legal ownership of Social Security payments from the hands of forced trial participants, is simply unconscionable.

We seek an explanation and legal justification for this action from the Department via this committee .

 

• We contend that these proposed amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, will tacitly authorise an incremental nation wide roll-out of the Cashless Debit Card as a program deployment, before all pertinent data has been accumulated and assessed, and that this presents unacceptable social, financial and physical risks to people within the Hinkler region community.

 

• We hold that the amendment changes contained within this Bill are evidence of a clear intention to alter the purpose of the CDCT program, from that of an investigative policy research trial to outright program deployment, and we maintain that to proceed to program deployment at this time is pre-emptive; that any such deployment would be reckless and uninformed with potentially catastrophic individual and social ramifications.

 

• It is an uncontested fact that the CDCT regime engages and limits a range of human rights. We refer the Committee to the following statement by the Parliamentary Joint Committee that the CDCT legislation must provide:

 

‘… existence of a legitimate objective must be identified clearly with supporting reasons and, generally, empirical data to demonstrate that [it is] important.’
And that:

To be capable of justifying a proposed limitation of human rights, a legitimate objective must address a pressing or substantial concern and not simply seek an outcome regarded as desirable or convenient. Additionally, a limitation must be rationally connected to, and a proportionate way to achieve, its legitimate objective in order to be justifiable in international human rights law.

 
We hold that the Cashless Debit Card 2018 legislation meets neither obligation external to its currently defined and LIMITED trial status. We share our deep concern that when combined with recent classification changes, the removal of existing stipulated trial end dates and midstream expansion efforts do and will undermine trial legitimacy, and will mean that any pretence of the CDCT being a dedicated investigative “trial” is being abandoned. We uphold and support the Human Rights Commission submission to this Senate in November 2017 [3], that states the current legislation fails to justify the infringements upon Human Rights, and so, it fails to meet provisions under the Act for any continuance much less any expansion.

 
• We hold that amending the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 further, will give tacit support to the Departments unsupported media claims that the CDCT has been a “success” when abundant evidence exists including multiple submissions of the lived experiences of forced trial participants made to this Senate in 2017, that demonstrate unchecked and largely unacknowledged breaches of privacy, human and civil rights and consumer rights.

We hold that the Orima Research Evaluation results are in fact contrary to the reports own conclusions and to remarks contained within the Executive Summary.

We put to the Committee that seeking via this Amendment Bill to permit a fourth roll out site, in contradiction to the current legislative permissions is clearly representative of a politically motivated ‘mission creep’ and indicative of an undisclosed agenda and unilateral decision making in progress.

 

• We assert that the Orima Wave 2 reports findings themselves demonstrate clearly that the return of essential funding to local services and more effective coordination of resources by these services, rather than the efficacy of imposed forced income management itself, has been the key factor in the few observable productive results reported within Orima Wave 2.
• We hold that the CDC is at root, a structure of socio-economic apartheid, that intentionally segregates in the majority, people who are not considered “at risk” within the “welfare class” from equality of access to the rights, privileges, protections and freedoms enjoyed under law by general society, without just cause. We hold that this is in itself an act of collective punishment, and that any institutional or structural apartheid structure, intentionally created or not, is wholly wrong and immoral and works actively against the principles and values of the Australia way of life.

 
• We hold that issues of addiction and social violence are health and policing issues and are not a direct product of, or exclusive to, the receipt of centrelink payments. We find that the presumption of causation being presented to the community by pro-card politically invested groups is born of social and media generated stereotypes and is not represented in related data. We hold that available data has been utilised as a pretext and marketing tactic by the Department in order to further the agenda of the CDC as a policy.

 
Further, we add that contrary to the views held by Keith Pitt MP and the Department, the reality of increasing numbers of people seeking assistance and support for addictions, gambling and drug/alcohol is not negative outcome at all, rather, it is evidence of the success of media and social activism designed specifically to bring people to help and support services when needed.

We hold that to use any data collected from that effort in such a manner that undermines participants human, civil, privacy and economic rights; that excludes them from full and active participation in community as the CDCT does, is an inappropriate use of data and an abuse of power and position. It is manipulative and deceptive.

 

• We remind the committee that significant conflicts of interest remain regarding the corporation managing the CDCT payments systems and these have not been acknowledged or addressed by this Senate at all. [4]
Aside from ongoing concerns regarding the relationship of Larry Anthony [current National Party President] with the Indue LTD Corporation as one time CEO and now Indue Ltd’s primary industry lobbyist under SAS Group Holdings, there are some basic problems and issues that have arisen with Indue Ltd as facilitator of the card program itself that do require attention and addressing as well and to proceed with expansion while these matters are outstanding would be negligent and a significant breach of duty of care.

 

These include:

(a) The fact that Indue Ltd is not a bank, and as as shareholder based for-profit ADI, they are not able to provide the full range of banking protections or services to their clients let alone to place the complex issues of active Social Welfare above corporate profit making. They a re not held to the same standards as banks, nor regulated in the same manner as banks are.

(b) Indue Ltd is not a subscriber to the Centrelink Code of Operation.

(c) Indue Ltd is not a subscriber to any industry code of conduct, like the Code of Banking Practice or the Customer-owned Banking Code of Practice.

(d) Indue Ltd does not have any experience in retail banking.

(e) Indue Ltd does not have any experience in social welfare or working with people in poverty or in crisis situations.

(f) Indue Ltd is an unelected, non representative body acting as a government agent, yet they remain unaccountable to our Senate.

(g) Indue Ltd has already made significant errors with payment handling in the current trial  zones that have created significant distress for forced trial participants. Indue Ltd has not been held accountable.

 

• We call the Committees attention to the issue of negative consumer impacts [4], and the reality that the Department have failed to address in any meaningful or respectful manner any report of distress being experienced by forced trial participants to date in any trial area; this, despite two prior Senate inquiries and the vocal and visible presentation of details of this duress and distress presented by submissions and petitions to minsters, councils, media, the Senate and to the general public.

 

Complaints and hardships and the personal lived experience of negative impacts of the CDCT in and upon the lives of forced trial participants have been routinely negated, and dismissed by the Department, often in the rudest, most disrespectful and vilifying manner.

This distress and evidence of significant hardship across all CDCT sites includes but is not limited to:

◦ Loss of income: increased bank fees and new $10 “inbound fees” that are being applied to participant transfers.

◦ Inability to flee violence.

◦ Inability to engage in every day cultural practices.

◦ Minimum spends at local shops impacting cash portion and quarantined portions of income. ◦ Indue LTD has not been investigating lost payments or late payments. People are unable to pay council rates.

◦ The acute distress of forced participants not being taken seriously by government representatives.

◦ Hunger strikes.

◦ Miscarriage [reported to our confidential drop box]

◦ Inability to access basic shopping services such as Woolworths and Coles online.

◦ The refusal of many people to activate cards leaving the most vulnerable in extreme and abject poverty.

◦ Entire communities in Ceduna and Goldfields were not consulted at all (example: Kambalda WA)

◦ Increased social and financial predatory behaviour inflicted upon those on CDCT by other community members and visiting criminals including: rape, fiscal manipulation, card on selling, child rape and physical abuse, street assaults, theft, grafting by store owners.

◦ Increases in mental health distress and increased completed suicides.

◦ Increases in youth crime and disaffection.

◦ Impact of aggressive policing, move on orders, leading to the isolation of many communities and individuals within communities.

◦ The bullying, stalking, doxxing and active ‘trolling’ of anti-card dissenters by minsters of this Parliament, paid political activists, and certain allied members of the general public.

◦ Reports from participants of increasing inability to cope with simple budget management given the complexity of split incomes.

◦ Indue Ltd transfer restrictions and the reality of no joint access on couples who must ‘financially divorce’ to continue to receive payments and pay bills, along with a plethora of other stress inducing issues being reported widely in media and in community forums
by CDCT participants themselves.

◦ Experiences of the bullying and ‘strong arming’ of local shop owners, service groups and businesses by the Department in trial regions and targeted regions.

◦ Inconstancy: Indue LTD staff at shop fronts in trial locations saying one thing to CDCT participants and the Department saying another.

◦ Increases in Domestic Violence.

◦ Increased racism and racial attacks.

◦ Increases in crime.

◦ Increases in “3 evils” behaviours.

◦ Loss of dignity and equality.

◦ Inability to purchase life saving medical equipment.

◦ Segregation/ongoing social exclusion from every day cash only family outings.

 

• We reaffirm to this committee this Committee that the Indue Ltd Cashless Debit card is not “just like any other visa debit card’:

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not prohibit you from accessing Bpay using your personal account number. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Can be used to purchase gift cards and motel stays. The CDC cannot.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Are not driving their users to suicide or to prostitute themselves for access to cash. The CDC is.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not subject the card user to social stigma, demeaning or dehumanising abuse from store keepers or the general public. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Can be used to make purchase on Gumtree, Amazon, Kindle, Ebay, Pay Pal. The CDC cannot.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not remove or impinge upon a card users Banking/Economic/Consumer Rights or impinge upon a users Human Rights, Privacy and Civil rights. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Have fraud, charge back and investigation/redress protections that apply to all card users equally. The CDC does not.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not require you to be subject to third party partitioning of your income, that restricts spending transfers and payments to nominated ‘categories’ you did not choose for yourself. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Cannot be forced onto you by coercion and duress. The CDC can and is.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not block your access to cash advances and freedom of bank transfers between accounts. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not undermine your life long credit rating, limit banking
choices and housing opportunities. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not require card users to ask for permission from the State, to spend, transfer or redirect personal income. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Are not an instrument of ideology or government policy. The CDC is.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not remove a card users political agency in their community. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not morally judge or presume a card users fiscal, physical, social or moral competency. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not impinge upon a person’s right to autonomy. The CDC does.

◦ Normal visa debit cards: Do not usurp legal ownership of your income. The CDC does.

 

These 28 examples, of over 150 plus similar examples available, sufficiently demonstrate that there are indeed substantial practical, ethical and functional differences between the CDC and “a regular visa debit card” the most disturbing of which, is the simple fact that the CDC financially segregates Australian tax paying citizens from their communities and the rights held by every other Australian citizen.

 

The Say No Seven Community recommends;

 

• As this legislation does not meet Human Rights standards and has been sufficiently proven to be an illegitimate and ineffective mechanism in meeting its stated objectives, we recommend that all CDC trials be halted immediately and forced participants returned to regular payments systems.

• That if it must remain in any form, the CDC transition to voluntary program offered on an ‘opt in’ basis.

• That forced third party income management should be imposed upon a person only when that person has undertaken an individual assessment and is clearly shown to be unable to manage their income or in need of direct intervention by a court of law. Even then, with severe Senate oversight, maximum duration/sunset clauses and with the offering of wrap around individually tailored services.

• That compensation be paid to forced trial participants under the current CDCT program for economic losses and personal suffering.

• That all sums earmarked for CDCT and CDC expansion be directed instead to rebuilding the infrastructure of the social services networks in communities; for engagement program development; building of Youth centres and diversion programs; anti-poverty programs; for social housing and social inclusion groups, and to those registered social welfare and health agencies specialising in the aid of persons with addiction problems and those in need of more intensive employment support.

 

In conclusion, the Indue Ltd Cashless Debit Card cannot and does not address individual or wider structural social and economic problems, including those underlying and causing, addiction, ‘welfare dependency’, under and unemployment, violence and sexual abuse impacting our communities and children today. In any authentic cost/benefit evaluation, the CDC falls desperately short of meeting any reasonable expectation of fairness, efficacy and efficiency.

 

The Say No seven community supports and affirms the 2017 submission to the Senate by the St Vincent de Paul Society [7], an excerpt of which states:

Instead of paternalistic and ideologically driven measures such as income management, we need a comprehensive set of policies that are grounded in evidence of what works, and that tackle the underlying causes of poverty and inequality.
We too insist that:

“…the considerable resources expended on the cashless welfare card and other paternalistic measures could be better spent on improving the adequacy of income support payments, investing in education and job creation and funding appropriate and effective services for struggling individuals and families.

 

We thank the committee for this opportunity to present to this inquiry.

The Say No Seven Community

 

 

 


Links:
[1] Hinkler Electorate Community Meeting video – [time stamp: 7m16s] The public withdrawal of prior of support for the CDC by local service providers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czT1ljrZXO8&feature=youtu.be&t=7m16s
[2] Petition to the Australian Senate opened by The Say No seven community bearing 2,748 organic signatures at time of sending: https://goo.gl/1qdbqf
[3]Hypocrisy and the Myth of the ” Good Community Leader”. https://goo.gl/idHsAN
[4] “Failing to report Goldfield’s distress, MP Rick Wilson focuses on the push for a Hinkler electorate roll out of the Indue Cashless Debit Card” : https://goo.gl/R11Yh3
[5] Guide to Social Security Law Version 1.241 – Released 5 February 2018 8.4.3 Protection of Payment http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/8/4/3
[6] SN7 Community Submission to the Nov 4th Cashless Debit Card 2017 Senate Inquiry: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GdYSKlc7nnn3c8tybvtybKykZ5gFLMNZ/view
[7] St Vincent de Paul Society Senate submission Nov 2017: https://www.vinnies.org.au/icms_docs/279095_Cashless_Welfare_Card_Briefing_Dec2017.pdf

Author: thesaynoseven

https://www.facebook.com/SAYNOSEVEN/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s