'Whistleblower network' confirms Cashless Debit Card trial currently sends welfare recipients' transaction histories to federal government agencies, including Dept. of Social Security

Voters have been raising many concerns on social media platforms about the Turnbull Government’s nation-wide Cashless Debit Card proposal.

Two questions frequently posed have been in relation to the fact that the Indue Ltd account created for each welfare recipient will not attract interest on any balance recorded and, the inevitability that federal government will keep a record of an individual’s purchasing history when using this card.

Other concerns have ranged from restricted purchasing options if vendor participation is low through to how rent from private landlords can be paid and the pitiful amount of cash in hand allowed under the Turnbull Government’s de facto privatisation of the Centrelink pension/benefit/allowance payments system.

A website dedicated to the idea of open and transparent government as a benchmark of genuine democracy went looking for some answers………..

The Little Bird: Support those who support the greater good, 5 May 2017:

CORRESPONDENCE WITH INDUE: #CASHLESS WELFARE CARD

I recently emailed a list of questions to Indue after reading their cashless welfare card Conditions of Use.

QUESTIONS FOR INDUE

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to you with questions based on the document at https://indue.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Conditions-of-Use.pdf Why do you not pay interest on the funds kept on Indue cards? How was the list of restrictions you impose on card holders drawn up?

These restrictions include:

* refusal to pay interest on savings;

* preventing joint banking;

* refusing the ability to pay down other credit cards;

* refusing the ability to set up direct debits;

* refusing chargeback rights provided with normal bank card purchases;

* construction of merchant whitelist/exclusion list.

Who were the stakeholders in the decision making process to create the above list of punishments and where is the documentation to provide accountability to the public about how this list was developed?

Can you please list the datasets that you share with other organisations and the organisations that you share this data with?

Why do you collect information about taxi rides taken by people using your debit card? What information do you collect about journeys taken by card holders?

Why are Indue account holders required to provide you with ‘external account information’?

Is it the case that you supply card holder transaction history with the Commonwealth Government? (p64)

What is the name of the ‘overseas service provider’ that you share card holder information with? (p65) What data does the Indue DCT App collect? (p71)

thank you for your time Rosie Williams BA (Sociology) whistleblower.network

Here is their reply. I have coloured text in red where I have concerns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Ms Williams

Thank you for your questions regarding the Cashless Debit Cards issued by Indue in connection with the Commonwealth Government’s Cashless Debit Card Trial.

Account Restrictions and Interest on Funds

The restrictions associated with the Cashless Debit Cards and Accounts including the decision to offer fee-free accounts and not to pay interest on the funds in accounts were decisions of the Commonwealth.  Any questions related to the decision making process surrounding the Cashless Debit Card Trial should be directed to the Department of Social Services at debitcardtrial@dss.gov.au.

Although the Department of Social Services is best placed to answer your questions regarding the restrictions, we take this opportunity to clarify the following with respect to the restrictions noted in your correspondence:

*  chargeback rights that exist for Visa debit cards issued by other financial institutions also apply to the Cashless Debit Cards.  Indue encourages anyone who believes that an  

    incorrect or unauthorised transaction has occurred through the use of their Cashless Debit Card to contact Indue’s Customer Service Centre on 1800 710 265;

*  cardholders are able to enter into direct debit arrangements with third parties by using their Visa Card number but not their BSB and Account Number; and

*  cardholders are able to transfer at least $200 per 28 days from their Cashless Debit Card account to a third party account which may be used to pay down any credit card debt.  If

   cardholders believe that the restrictions in place are causing them financial hardship by preventing them from paying off credit card debt, then Indue recommends they contact the Department of Social Services on 1800 252 604.

Privacy

Indue only collects and discloses information for the purpose of providing services to cardholders and providing information to the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Cashless Debit Card Trial.  The information that Indue shares in the course of providing the services includes details such as a cardholder’s name, date of birth and address as well as transactional information, including the amount of a transaction, where a transaction was undertaken and who the payment was made to or received from.  It is essential to provide these details to payment scheme providers so that transactions can be made. In addition to the Commonwealth, in the course of providing the services to cardholders Indue may provide information to:

*  service providers who Indue operate the accounts (such as the card manufacturer and Indue’s payment switch);

*  payment scheme providers (such as Visa, BPAY and APCA);

*  regulatory bodies, government agencies, law enforcement bodies and courts;

*  other participants in the financial systems (such as other financial institutions for the purpose of resolving disputes, errors or issues in relation to Accounts); and

*  other parties as is authorised or required by law.              

Information regarding taxi journeys may be collected to ensure merchants cannot circumvent welfare restrictions. 

External account information

There is no obligation on Indue account holders to provide Indue with their external account information.  In certain circumstances Indue may request this information from account holders or the Commonwealth so that Indue can facilitate a transfer from an Indue account to a cardholder’s external account.  For example, to return any residual funds to a Cashless Debit Card account holder upon the closure of their account.

Provision of transaction history to the Commonwealth

As set out in the Conditions of Use for the Cashless Debit Card (available on our website at www.indue.com.au/dct/cou), Indue shares information collected about cardholders with the Commonwealth.  This information may include the cardholder’s address, date of birth, contact details, transaction history and communications a cardholder has had with Indue about their account. This is necessary for the Commonwealth to operate aspects of the trial.

Indue DCT Application

Once the Indue DCT Application has been installed on a device and a card holder has logged into their account, Indue will collect device identification details including DeviceId, DeviceName, DeviceModel, DevicePlatform and DeviceVersion. These device details allow Indue to identify the type of device used by a card holder. These details are necessary for the Application to allow in-application notifications to card holders. 

Yours sincerely,

customer service centre

PO Box 523, Toowong QLD 4066

phone 1800 710 265

email dct@indue.com.au  web indue.com.au/dct

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ceduna, South Australia and the Turnbull Government's cashless debit card trial

On 15 March and 26 April 2016 the Turnbull Government began a twelve month long trial of the Cashless Debit Card aka Healthy Welfare Card in Ceduna and surrounds, South Australia and the East Kimberly region in Western Australia.

The Dept. of Social Security (DSS) Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation Wave 1 Interim Evaluation Report February 2017 stated:

More participants said the CDCT [Cashless Debit Card Trial] had made their lives worse than made it better (49% compared to 22%). Family members of trial participants gave a similar pattern of answers (37% and 27%).

The evaluation report also contained a wealth of unsupported anecdotal information bolstering implementation of the cashless debit card – a few instances of which read like pure fairy tales. None of which could be fact checked by readers of the interim report.

However, Turnbull Government claims in the media of reduced crime statistics due to introduction of the cashless debit card can at least be broadly checked.

This is an excerpt from the South Australian Police Annual Report June 2015- June 2016 covering the Eyre and Western Service Local Area which includes Ceduna:

From 2014-15 to 2015-16, Homicide and Related Offences decreased by -25% (18 offences), with Other Homicide and Related Offences decreasing by -39.6% (21 offences). Sexual Assault and Related Offences decreased by -7.2%(150 offences) overall. There were decreases in the three groups within the Sexual Assault and Related Offences subdivision, with Non Assaultive Sexual Offences decreasing by -14.1% (63 offences).

Robbery and Related Offences decreased by -12.9% (90 offences), with Aggravated Robbery Offences decreasing by -16.8% (84 offences).

Serious Criminal Trespass increased by 4.6% (600 offences) over the previous year. The main driver for this was Serious Criminal Trespass – Residence which increased by 5.8% (476 offences), where offenders are breaking into homes, flats, units and apartments. Serious Criminal Trespass – Non Residence increased by 2.6% (124 offences), where offenders are breaking into domestic sheds and garages.

Theft and Related Offences have increased by 8.4% (3383 offences) over the previous year. The main drivers are Theft from Shop which increased by 16.7% (1118 offences) and Other Theft which increased by 11.4% (2209 offences). Theft from Service/Petrol Station was one of the causes for the increase in the Other Theft category. Theft/Illegal use of Motor Vehicle has increased to 4.6% (149 offences). The 2015-16 result of 3364 stolen vehicles represents a decrease of -60.8% from a high of 8574 offences in 2006-07.

Fraud, Deception and Related Offences have seen an increase of 5.5% (152 offences). The main driver for this was Obtain Benefit by Deception which increased by 4.6% (105 offences).

Property Damage and Environmental has seen a slight increase of 10 offences. Environmental relates to the natural world and the impact of human activity on its condition, also relating to or arising from a person’s surroundings e.g. environmental noise. Property Damage by Fire or Explosion increased by 3.4% (59 offences). Graffiti offences decreased by -12.4% (315 offences).

Illicit Drug Offences have increased by 24.2% (768 offences). One of the main drivers is the 72.8% (437 offences) increase in Possess/Use Drugs. Other Drug Offences refers to the possession, use, sale or furnishing of any drug or intoxicating substance or drug paraphernalia, that is prohibited by law. This group has seen an increase of 51.1% (324 offences). Weapons/explosives Offences have increased by 12.0% (329 offences). The main driver of this increase is Prohibited weapons/explosives of 23.4% (150 offences). Justice Procedure Offences have increased 15.3% (2367 offences). This category includes Breach of bail which increased by 17.6% (1486 offences) and Breach of violence and non-violence restraining orders which has increased by 17.8% (629 offences). This is largely due to an increased emphasis on encouraging and supporting reporting of those offences associated with family and domestic violence.

Other Theft GENS have increased by 63.2% (2199 offences). This is due to the Public Transport Safety Branch focusing on high visibility policing and passenger safety throughout the metropolitan public transport system.

Total General Expiations have increased by 9.8% (2867 offences). One of the main drivers is the 28.9% (1615) increase in Drug Diversions with police emphasising the educational aspect of engaging with adult offenders using diversionary options.

South Australian State monthly crime statistics from March 2016 to February 2017 and Eyre and Western Service Local Area monthly crime statistics for the same period also do not appear to support the lower incidence of crime claims by Human Services Minister Alan Tudge and Social Services Minister Christian Porter.

Uniting Communities, formerly UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide and the Adelaide Central Mission, observed on 14 March 2017:

The Report states a decrease in overall crime in the Ceduna trial site. However, the statistics for a range of crimes, as provided by SAPOL for the Eyre Western LSA over the past 12 months when compared to the previous year, indicate an increase in offences against property and against the person. Most notably, there was a 111% increase in robbery and related offences, and a 400% increase in non-aggravated robbery.

Schrapel says, ‘It’s alarming to note that the Minister for Human Services has indicated in an interview today with ABC News that the crime figures in the Report were “preliminary and not conclusive” and yet this very same crime data has been used to validate the extension of the Cashless Card. Surely we need a more rigorous assessment of such evidence before it is used to justify a major policy announcement’.

Because DSS frequently relied on broader SLA statistics perhaps local media can be useful in fleshing the situation on the ground out a little more.

Ceduna Local Government Area has an estimated resident population of 3,716 people and The West Coast Sentinel  covers local news in the region.

Here are some of the crime reports in this newspaper during the cashless debit card trial period as of 22 April 2017:

18 April 2017:

Two Ceduna businesses were broken into early last Thursday morning. Items were stolen from Spry's Newsagency and Mitre 10, while the Ceduna Sailing Club was also damaged. Police are investigating the incidents, with electrical items and cigarettes stolen from the newsagency. Eleven mobile phones, including Samsung, ZTE and HTC brands and a Telstra Essentials black tablet were stolen along with a number of packets of ciagrettes.

3 April 2017:

A man was arrested after being caught drink driving at Koonibba on Sunday morning. Police stopped the vehicle just after 1am and requested the driver submit to a breath test.

He was directed to attend the Ceduna Police Station for further testing but became agitated and attempted to walk away.

He was arrested for refusing to obey reasonable police direction, driving under the influence with an alleged reading of 0.162 and resisting police. He was issued a 12-month loss of licence.

30 March 2017:

Four drink drivers were caught at Ceduna and Streaky Bay late last week including a driver detected during a school drop-off.

2 March 2017:

Police stopped the car and found three women and three children aged 9, 8 and 4 all not wearing seatbelts.

The 32-year-old driver was breath tested and returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.120 per cent.

Further checks revealed she only held a learner's permit.

The Ceduna woman was reported for a number of traffic offences including drink driving, breaching learner's permit conditions, failing to ensure passengers were wearing seatbelts and driving with unrestrained children in the car.

The car was also defected and impounded for 28 days and the woman was issued with a six-month instant loss of licence.

The adult passengers were also fined with failing to wear a seatbelt.

2 February 2017:

A MAN had his licence suspended for a year after he was caught drink driving in Ceduna last Thursday.

Police stopped a Ford station wagon on Denial Bay Road at about 4.30pm and breath tested the male driver who returned a positive reading of 0.165 per cent.

Just before 8pm, police stopped the woman as she was driving a Holden sedan along Poynton Street for a mobile screening test.

The 31-year-old Ceduna woman provided a positive preliminary breath test and later returned a breath test result of 0.134 per cent.

She lost her licence for six months and will be summoned to appear in court at a later date.

12 January 2017:

TWO youths were arrested following a police pursuit with a stolen van at Ceduna last week.

8 December 2016:

POLICE reported a man for speeding and drink driving in Ceduna last Thursday.

Police were conducting speed detection duties along the Eyre Highway west of Ceduna when they detected a car travelling at 124 kilometres an hour in a 110km/h speed zone.

Police breath tested the driver who allegedly produced a blood alcohol reading of 0.114 per cent.

The 46-year-old was issued with a six-month instant loss of licence and had his car impounded.

27 October 2016:

A WEST Coast man was arrested following a domestic disturbance in Ceduna last Tuesday night.

Police were called to Goode Road following reports that a woman had been stabbed. She was found adjacent to the Eyre Highway with a stab wound to the leg and taken to the Royal Adelaide Hospital in a serious condition.

A 54-year-old man was charged with aggravated assault causing serious harm. He was refused police bail and appeared at Ceduna Magistrates' Court the following day.

28 August 2016:

A DRIVER was reported for traffic offences after rolling his car near Penong on Saturday… It seems the driver had taken evasive action to avoid an echidna that was crossing the road.

The 59-year-old Yalata man was reported for drink driving and failing to immediately report the crash to police. He recorded a blood alcohol reading of 0.261 - more than five times the legal limit.

10 July 2016:

POLICE have arrested a woman following a domestic disturbance near Ceduna on Friday night.

Police were called to a house west of Ceduna just after 11pm, July 8, following reports that a man had been stabbed.

When patrols arrived, they located a 25-year-old man with stab wounds to his leg. He was taken to the Ceduna Hospital in a serious condition and will be airlifted to the Flinders Medical Centre on Saturday morning.

A woman was arrested at the scene and was also treated for minor injuries at the hospital.

Police advise that both parties were known to each other and this was not a random incident.                                                                                                                                                                                          

16 May 2016:

A 27-year-old man was arrested after leaving his ID at the scene of a break-in at Ceduna on Saturday, May 14.

Just after 5am, neighbours of an elderly resident in Collins Street, Ceduna, woke to the sound of smashing glass.

The neighbours, including an off-duty police officer, investigated the scene and startled the two offenders, who ran off.

One of the suspects left his bank card at the scene and was subsequently arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated serious criminal trespass, two counts of illegal interference, property damage and theft.

It will also be alleged the 27-year-old Koonibba man stole a number of items from a shed.

21 March 2016:

THREE Ceduna men were taken into police custody and were charged with aggravated counts of robbery and serious criminal trespass after cars were stolen and a service station broken into last Wednesday night.

At about 8.45pm, a Ceduna man was allegedly assaulted by three men and had his Holden sedan stolen. Police will allege the trio then drove to Streaky Bay and broke into a service station before continuing to Port Kenny. Once there it is alleged they stole another vehicle which was later located by police near Streaky Bay. The three men were found walking along the highway the following morning and were arrested by Ceduna detectives. They were charged with aggravated robbery, serious criminal trespass and illegal use, and appeared at the Ceduna Magistrates' Court on Thursday.

To an outsider looking in it doesn’t seem like much has changed for the better in relation to criminal activity since Indue's cashless debit card has been in use.

Perhaps ministers Tudge and Porter might like to comment further?

UPDATE

The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 March 2016:

Indue is owned by mutual lenders such as credit unions. It issues payment cards, including pre-paid cards for the likes of Coles and on behalf of the federal government to welfare recipients…….

Indue had $27.4 million in total (tier I and tier II) capital as of June 2015.

It only uses the licence to take deposits on its pre-paid cards for corporations and government clients such as the Department of Human Services.

Mr Garcia has won a government contract to issue cards to welfare recipients in the Northern Territory and Western Australia that limits what they can buy to essential goods, and hopes it will be rolled out nationally.

This could significantly boost profits on its own but it would still need additional capital, he said.

The company made a $3.5 million profit in 2015 on revenue of almost $70 million. It paid its owners a dividend of $12 a share.

The following is information based on the ASIC Current & Historical Company Extract for Indue Ltd, ACN 087 822 464, 3, May 2017.

Indue Ltd is an unlisted public company formerly known as: Credit Union Settlement Services Ltd from 01/12/1992 to 27/03/2001 and Creditlink Services Ltd from 28/03/2001 to 30/11/2005.

Registered address: Level 3, 601 Coronation Drive, Toowong QLD 4066

Appointed Auditor: KPMG

Share Structure: 111,431 fully paid A CLASS VOTING SHARES with total worth declared as $15,521,960 and 14,751 fully paid B CLASS NON VOTING SHARES with total worth declared as $1,743,100. Shareholding not broken down by named shareholders.

Current company directors recorded by ASIC:

PETER TOWNSEND,13 Korogora Street, CRESCENT HEAD NSW 2440

SCOTT RODNEY KING, 116 Bathurst Street, PITT TOWN NSW 2756

ROBERT DAWSON PETIE, 11 Pring Street, TARRAGINDI QLD 4121

AILEEN ELIZABETH CULL, 27 Arabian Place, BLACK RIVER QLD 4818

FRANK GULLONE, 8 Bernarra Court, DONVALE VIC 3111

GEORGE FINLAY BELL, Unit 26, 9 Jardine Street, KINGSTON ACT 2604

STEPHEN ROBERT CAPELLO, 8 Valonia Avenue, SURREY HILLS VIC 3127

SALLY CLARE COLLIER, 325 Whale Beach Road, PALM BEACH NSW 2108

Healthy Welfare Card: Dear Indue Ltd.....

Unhappy voters on the subject of the cashless debit card also known as the Heathy Welfare Card......

AIM Network, 5 March 2017:

Indue Ltd
C/- Stargroup Ltd
(Formerly ICash Payment Systems, Formerly Reef Mining).

PO Box 523 Toowong
QLD 4066 Australia

P: +61 7 3258 4222
F: +61 7 3258 4211
E: indue@indue.com.au

5 March 2017

Re the ‘Healthy’ Welfare Card.

Dear Indue Ltd – its Board, Directors and Shareholders,

I am aware that the Commonwealth Human Services Minister in the Turnbull government, Alan Tudge, is intending to transfer all welfare recipients to the ‘Healthy Welfare Card’ for income management purposes in the near future. As an Australian citizen I am aware that levels of unemployment in Australia are high and unlikely to fall soon due to the policies of the Turnbull government and that, therefore, there is a high risk that I may become unemployed in the near future and, hence, subject to the income management welfare card scheme initiated by the LNP government and, specifically, by the Human Services Minister Alan Tudge and the Social Services Minister Christian Porter.

I am also aware that Indue and its owners are to be paid between $4000 and $7000 from the Australian budget as fees for each person on the income management card system including possibly for myself in the future. I understand that how much Indue actually receives of tax payer’s money for each person in its management scheme as an administrative fee, including possibly for myself in the future, will depend upon whether the person resides in an urban or regional location. However, given that the Turnbull government intends to extend the operation of the income management welfare card scheme to all welfare recipients soon then the profit Indue can anticipate making from the scheme is in the region of $4.6 billion dollars. I note this amount is an additional amount of expenditure on top of the existing welfare budget as I understand the implementation of the welfare card system does not create any savings for the government that can be accredited against the alleged budget deficit. In my view this money would be better spent on reducing the alleged debt or on the people of Australia as a whole and not on creating profits for a private company with political connections such as Indue.

I am further aware that those amounts are to be paid to Indue as fees from the Department of Human Services budget which departmental budget is itself obtained entirely from the Australian Consolidated Revenue Fund that belongs to all the Australian people. I am aware that the fee amounts Indue is to receive, or that it has already received so far, for performing its income management duties to welfare recipients, have been, or will be, appropriated by the Department of Human Services from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purported purpose of providing welfare for the Australian people and not for misuse as payment of profits to a private company such as Indue.

I consider that if I am compelled to participate in the card scheme and become subject to Indue’s income management scheme in the future then Indue would become my fiduciary. In the case Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corps Justice Mason of the High Court of Australia said the following:

The accepted fiduciary relationships are sometimes referred to as relationships of trust and confidence or confidential relations …The critical feature of these relationships is that the fiduciary undertakes or agrees to act for or on behalf of or in the interests of another person in the exercise of a power or discretion which will affect the interests of that other person in a legal or practical sense. The relationship between the parties is therefore one which gives the fiduciary a special opportunity to exercise the power or discretion to the detriment of that other person who is accordingly vulnerable to abuse by the fiduciary of his position. The expressions “for”, “on behalf of” and “in the interests of” signify that the fiduciary acts in a “representative” character in the exercise of his responsibility…

Given that the Turnbull government is intending to transfer all welfare recipients to the income management welfare card scheme in the near future and given that I am likely to become unemployed in the future, it is almost certain that Indue will manage my income in the future and that it will do so purportedly in my interests and on my behalf as my fiduciary. On that basis, Indue would owe me the duties and obligations that usually accompany fiduciaries. Those duties would include, but would not be limited to, the obligation of complete disclosure to me, the prohibition against personally profiting from the performance of its duties to me, the obligation to avoid a conflict of interests and duties and a duty to protect me from any possible or actual losses from its management of my income. Losses that I would likely sustain from the income management welfare card scheme would include losses of opportunities to buy cheap goods or services at a cash price that I could not obtain by use of the card due to the restrictions on access to cash in the card system. Anticipated losses would also extend to any additional financial service fees I will incur due to me being forced to use the card in being denied access to cash. In those circumstances, in its capacity as my fiduciary, I would be entitled to hold Indue liable for those and any other possible losses I incur due to the operation of the card and Indue’s management of my income.

I also note that in the Hospital Products case his Honour Chief Justice Gibbs said:

A person who occupies a fiduciary position may not use that position to gain a profit or advantage for himself, nor may he obtain a benefit by entering into a transaction in conflict with his fiduciary duty, without the informed consent of the person to whom he owes the duty.

By this correspondence then, and on the basis that Indue will likely seek to become my fiduciary in the near future and stands to gain from that capacity, as it has already done with the huge profits it has already obtained from the income management welfare card scheme so far, I give notice that I do not consent to Indue managing my income or becoming my fiduciary at any time or of obtaining fees from anyone, including from the Government, for any income management services it purports to undertake for me or on my behalf.

I give further notice that if I am compelled to participate in the card programme I will hold Indue and its owners liable for any and all losses or liabilities I sustain due to the operation of the welfare card and of the income management system. Those losses and liabilities will extend to any legal costs I incur in challenging or remedying Indue’s management of my income without my consent.

Regards,

An Australian Citizen 2017

Facebook, Tina Clausen‎ to Milton Dick MP

14 March 

I am really angry about the proposed expansion of the Cashless Welfare Card:

After having worked as a professional Social Worker for twenty years including in agency management and interdisciplinary team leader positions, then having to leave the workforce due to illness, how dare the LNP government assume that I am suddenly incapable of managing my own income and decide that I should be treated like a child and a criminal?

LNP are taking away my basic Human Rights of dignity, self-determination and social freedom. They are also illegally disadvantaging me by letting Indue retain interest earned on money in my account as well as forcing me to access goods and services that are more expensive than I get them for now. Money is tight and I'm managing my budget accordingly, they and private for profit company Indue will blow my budget out the window.

Logistically and practically the card is not working and is a nightmare for the general public, whom they are employed to serve in their best interest. This is in no ones best interest except Indue and its shareholders. The $4000 or more the scheme costs to manage per person could be better spent on increasing beneficiary payments, at least that way the money would be funneled back into local communities and thereby stimulating the economy.

The card was initially brought in to support people that had difficulties managing their income appropriately due to addiction issues. That is where it can be targeted, at an individual level for people identified within existing frameworks as being at risk eg via police, child safety services etc.

It is not appropriate to bring the card in wholesale across entire communities and eventually across the nation. We all have the right to live without excessive government interference in our day to day lives. This card only benefits Indue and the big chain stores especially. It is big brother in full action.  

Another issue is that whereas New Start recipients can leave the scheme when they find employment, people with chronic illnesses or disabilities will be stuck on it for life. They already have a hard time and now they want to punish them further?

I would not be able to continue my cheap insurance with Budget Direct, I would have to go to more expensive insurance providers. People can't shop at cheap fresh food markets or garage sales but can go to Woolworths or the very expensive David Jones. 20% cash does not come close to meeting costs where you are unable to use the card, can't even pay off a credit card debt or a mortgage with a re-draw facility if some people have those loans as you are not allowed to transfer money to those.

Unscrupulous individuals as well as shop owners are already taking advantage of people on the card and ripping off the most vulnerable in our society. They do this by taking a percentage of desperate peoples money in return for a cash exchange and shops in areas with little competition massively increase their prices. We are talking 200-400% price hikes.

The sad thing is the card doesn't even address the initial issue the card was brought in for - those few who might actually need such assistance have found ways around it out of sheer desperation or embark on crime sprees to make up their shortfall.

We are a free country and as politicians there to serve the people they have no right to impose such a punitive and draconian scheme on unwilling Citizens. We NEVER voted for or said 'yes' to such a scheme.

Faithfully,

Tina Clausen.

PS. Many people are not aware that the card is not only for people on unemployment benefits but for all people who receive any kind of government benefits including carers pension, family income support, parenting allowance, disability support, youth allowance, sickness benefits and so on, only aged pensioners are excluded (for now).

So the Turnbull Government wants to quarantine your Centrelink income & family assistance payments? Time to read the fine print

A limited compulsory income management scheme was introduced by the Howard Government in 2007.

Its aim was to reduce discretionary disposable income by quarantining 50 per cent of all Australian Government income support and family assistance payments. 

Over time it was expanded to include individuals and/or certain communities in all eight states and territories and the financial vehicle for delivery was the Basics Card.

As of 25 March 2016 there were a total of 26,508 individuals nation-wide whose income was quarantined in the income management scheme and only 20.66 per cent had entered the scheme ‘voluntarily’.

An est. 20,941 people in the scheme identified as indigenous.

Of the total nation-wide figure 79.93 per cent were persons living in the Northern Territory and only an est. 2,755 (13 per cent) of those Territorians on income management were not classed as indigenous.

In October 2016 Prime Minster Malcolm Bligh Turnbull announced that the Healthy Welfare Card – the latest version of cashless debit card income management being trialled – will probably be introduced for all income support and family assistance recipients across Australia, at this stage with the exception of those on Age and Veterans’ Affairs pensions¹.

This version quarantines 80 per cent of fortnightly or other periodic cash transfer payments made to a person receiving income support or family assistance. It also quarantines 100 per cent of any lumpsum payment.

There will be few exemptions available for those who attempt to opt out of the scheme.

Given that there is: 

significant restriction on how this card can be used²,

inadequate consumer protection for card holders,

poor monthly statement record keeping in comparison with an ordinary bank account,

no monthly interest payable on any balance remaining in a welfare restricted account - unlike an ordinary bank account,

no guarantee that the entire account balance will be fully accessible to a card holder, 

no direct debiting allowed³, and

no procedure identified for retrieval/transfer to executor of an account balance on death of a cardholder,

it may be wise to read up on the fine print in advance of full implementation being announced by the Turnbull Government.

Here are the current conditions published by Indue Ltd⁴ which operates this cashless debit card:

Indue: Debit Card Account Conditions of Use  (PDF 84 pages)

Footnote:

1. According to the DSS Guide to Social Security Law, 8.7.2.30 Trigger Payment (Cashless Debit Card Trial), April 2017:

The trigger payments are:

a payment under the scheme known as ABSTUDY that includes an amount identified as living allowance,

austudy payment,

benefit PP (partnered),

BVA, so long as the recipient has not reached pension age,

carer payment,

disability support pension,

newstart allowance,

PgA (other than non-benefit allowance),

partner allowance,

pension PP (single),

sickness allowance,

special benefit,

widow allowance,

widow B pension,

wife pension,

youth allowance.

2. 8.7.6.40 Welfare Restricted Bank Accounts

3. Existing Centrepay deduction/s appear to be subtracted from a Centrelink fortnightly income support payment before the balance is split between the new welfare restricted bank account (80 per cent) and the original unrestricted bank account (20 percent).

4. Indue has been providing income management services to the federal government since at least 2009. The Department of Human Services awarded an 8.6 million contract to Indue Limited covering 1-Jul-2015 to 30-Jun-2017 for Income Management Card Services and a contract worth $840,000 for the period 1-Jan-2017 to 31-Dec-2017 supplying business administration services in the form of Benefits Cards.