Direct Debit plan for bad parents... Good idea, or Nanny state?

[the_queen]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18978254-29277,00.html

I saw the interview with Mal Brough this morning on "Sunday" , and it kinda breaks my left-wing heart to say this, but I totally agree with him.

Give parents a chance to prove that they can manage their welfare money on their own - but should they blow that chance, compulsory direct debitting is a great idea I think.

On one hand it is telling people what they should spend their money on - but on the other hand, if they are having problems where they can't see sense, where they can't make good choices about what they spend their money on, then the government DOES have a responsibility to look after those kids.


Thoughts?

[jessgray]

its a good idea in theroy but if its not compulsory then how do they know the families who really need it are using it :confused: and if the families are plauged by drug abuse etc why isnt Docs or DHS stepping in to help them?

[the_queen]

At the moment it is volutary but Mr Brough is saying he would like it to become compulsory for certain families. They would get "reported" by agencies such as FAYS, DV support services, DASC and similar services, police and the court system. Then it wouldn't be voluntary anymore.
Your point is exactly what Mr Brough is saying - the kids who really need this direct debit system in place, are most likely in a family situation with adults who would not do this voluntarily.
And the problem with drug/alcohol problems, the kids will eventually get taken away if the problems become too severe, but in general there are kids in far worse situations than just having a parent who is drug-f***ed. (Please excuse my language, but I can't think of another word to adequately describe what I mean).

[tanni_83]

ok although this is a great idea because it will make sure the right bills are paid.

but i have to admit i hate direct debit at the best of times. i have been caught out by it so many (and my dh too) by complanies saying they will take the money out on a certain date but yet sometimes do it early and if the money isnt there then you are hit with a $40-$50 fee for the money not being in ur account (by the bank)

i think if they made it so they have to present recepts every X (whever of time frame) then it would be ok. but i know there will still be ppl falling through the cracks. its a dog eat dog world out there :(

[the_queen]

Centrepay is a little different to regular direct debits though. I know EXACTLY what you mean tanni LOL many a time I have been caught out and *bing* $35 dishonour fee :mad:
Centrepay is Centrelink's very own direct debit system, where you don't actually receive your full entitlement - Centrelink basically pays your bills for you. When I was a single mum I had Centrepay in place for my rent. So instead of the $426 per fortnight pension, I would receive in my bank account $206, and my rent would have been paid already.

[WeThree]

In NSW (Im not sure about other states) Im pretty sure that if you live in a housing commision property, your rent is always automatically taken out if you recieve centrelink benefits. I think for people who want to use it it is a great idea, and for those in the community with a mental disability or illness i think it would be also great if their rent,elec, phone etc was taken out automatically each week, because for some people they are incapable of managing their money, I know their are many people like this who already have this done for them, but still so many more who fall through the cracks.
I think more services need to be in place to direct people to these sort of things, and to help identify those in the community that need it. Free family budgeting courses is a great idea, and could be used as an opportunity to let more people know about these sort of facilities that centrelink has.
I bought a fridge recently and I am paying it off each fortnight with the family allowance I get, centrelink take it straight out for me, and i think it is great!

[SassyMummy]

At first I was thinking "WHAT?!" because I am on Centrelink benefits...and I was thinking, "I don't want some moron allocating certain amounts of my money to tell me what to buy!" But then I had a look at the article and read that it's for those who are abusing the money anyway...so I actually think it's a good idea.

To tell EVERY parent on welfare how they should spend their money is ridiculous... every parent has different needs, some need to spend more on clothes than others, or more on food, or more on rent etc etc... But for those who are blowing their money on drugs and whatnot...they DEFINATELY should have their bills paid for through a direct debit system. They're not getting the money to be potheads after all..they're getting it to be able to raise their children sufficiently.

[M O P]

I don't really have an opinion but would like to share a story a friend who used to work in a small town in the supermarket at day and the pub at night told me once. She said she probably shouldn't have said anything to anyone but it really got to her. She didn't name names.

She served a woman in the supermarket who paid for her groceries with a voucher from St Vinnie's or Salvo's, something along those lines, ie she couldn't afford to buy them herself. This woman must have had children too.
That evening the same woman is playing pokies in the pub and withdraws $500 over the bar's eftpos. My friend commented to another staff member how that was really bad as she just withdrew $500 and she needed a charity voucher to buy her groceries. The other staff member replied "That's the second $500 she's taken out today then as I got her $500 earlier." :banghead:

[zactyl]

I have a candidate too kazza, brand new video mobile on an $80 plan, foxtell with all the channels, getting a bunch of Crisco AND Castle Hampers for Christmas... and then complained because her child was sick and she'd taken him to the doctor and had to get $15 worth of medicine... "I don't have that kind of money!" :banghead:

[EskimoMumma]

i believe it is a good idea
JMO

[Veritas]

It's definitely a good initiative for those who have proven they have abused the privlege.... basically it makes good business sense too....

These people that are misusing govt monies, that is intended to help raise their children, on drugs/alcohol etc obviously have a few parenting lessons to learn as well.... hopefully this will encourage them to acquire the skills they need to be there for their kids....

In turn its a win win situation, they are no longer misusing govt money, no longer wasting charitable resources that should be used for those who truly need it, and :fingerscrossed: lessen the need for DOCS to intervene!

[hippee]

I think it's a great idea for the parents that receive their payments then are at the pub putting it through pokies and/or drinking smoking it away, then are on the salvos door the next day for food vouchers. I work in the canteen at my son’s school and there is a little girl there who never has anything to eat, she is in Kindy for goodness sake. So between her teacher and the canteen ladies we pay for her to have a hot lunch and recess (sometimes even breakfast as she is sometimes the first kid at school).
Some parents are shocking, and will probably find a way around using the money card to buy ****.

[MamaSage]

Great idea. So long as it is done properly and trustworthy people are not being punished. Cos we all know there are sooo many Centrelink frauds out there. Now they just need to get on top of the people who are on benefits and shouldn't be.

[kiwibird27]

It's a good idea, but wouldn't parents who are addicted just find other ways to get money???? Stealing, selling drugs, prostitution etc???? Would need to be done alongside life management skills etc, and the parent would actually want to change!!!
Only other problem is they are starting up a completely new governent agency - more paperwork etc, would of prefered in joined onto the exisiting organisations to ease the sharing of files etc.

Also with direct debit for bills - At least the kids will have power, and food, well hot water isn't much help if mummy is so stoned she can't move, and food is great but someone actually has to prepare it or send it to school!!! Some parents don't even know how to cook a basic meal?? Lifeskills are becoming less and less and the family network is breaking up - i see this as a huger issue than any other.
At least AGL and Energy Australia will be happy - not to mention woolies and coles, imagine the fees they can charge!!!

[the_queen]

Good point kiwibird. As you've described it, it does seem like a short-term solution, without actually solving the problem of WHY these parents do this. I wish the answer was simple, I wish there was an easy way to fix this.

[pestiferous]

I think it's a wonderful idea, But ask why stop at just those "mis-using" benefits ?

Welfare payments are a privilege not a right and should be considered a form of emergancy help NOT a permenant solution.

The only essentials in life are food, water, air, shelter and education. though not a necessity i would to be fair include electricity.

One of them is free ALL the others can be supplied indirectly.

I am not heartless i understand that single parents may have difficulties finding work (though i see no excuse whatsoever for childless adults or at least ONE of a partnered couple to be unemployed any longer than a month)

Either offer full "cash" payments for a short period of time then cut them off completely OR

offer long term support through voucher systems that force those wanting more than the essentials to WORK for them.

Or perhaps even a combination of both, voucher systems for the essentials and "work (or study) for the dole" for a part cash payment!

We have had 4 so called job seekers not turn up for their interview in the last 2 weeks alone.

2 thers have been offered the job and refused, one stating it was too far to drive (a 15 minute trip) and one stating the wage was not high enough [over three times his (fortnightly) payment per week]

It is simply too easy to stay unemployed, perhaps if welfare payments were more humiliating, perhaps more difficult to get used to more people would be willing if not eager to work and work hard like the rest of the world has to!

[the_queen]

Tough words, pestiferous.

Can't really tar all welfare recipients with the same brush though, can you?

[the_queen]

I'd be interested to know, pestiferous - have you ever been on welfare payments?

How can you imply that they're NOT humiliating??

[pestiferous]

i did say MORE humiliating.

and yes i realise they are tough words,

but please remember that i have differentiated between those that want to work and those that do not by including my personal experience with those collecting benefits but refusing a fair days wage for a fair days work.

as i said i understand why single parents may need longer term help, but honestly can anyone give me fair reason to be out of work for any longer than a month if one has no children to care for?

please do not tell me a lack of skills, if one is lacking in experience or skill then get an education it is after all practically free to do so for benefit recipients.

This is not a perfect world, unfortunately some do abuse the system.

Rembering welfare is NOT a right, is it so bad to expect others to tolerate a harder system to reduce the number that take advantage?

should we not all suffer for the greater good........after all those sincerely seeking work would only have to tolerate those conditions for a short time.

[SassyMummy]

I don't think humiliating people into wanting to work is the way to go at all. There are plenty of people who are bludging, I don't disagree with that at all. At the same time, however, there are plenty of people out there who are recieving Centrelink payments FAIRLY.

I recieve payments NOW as a single mother (I have a partner but we can't afford to live together just yet), and I have received payments in the past also. When I was 18 I studied part-time and had a part-time job. I therefore got Centrelink. Because of my course, I could not get a full-time job...and so I think it was completetly reasonable for me to recieve Centrelink payments. It's not as if I was sitting around home watching television...I was DOING something.

However, working at a shop part-time doesn't give you too much money...so I NEEDED my Centrelink payments to help make ends meet. Sure, I lived at home, but I paid rent. My mother can't afford to fully support me on her own, so obviously some of what I earnt went to her.

While you can give out vouchers for different things...some things that aren't necessarily 100% NEEDED are actually kinda...well, needed. Like train fares. Being a part-time student, I didn't qualify for student discounts. Therefore, every time I went to work, I paid $8.80 return (I worked in the city, about 1 hour away from my home - I applied closer to home as well, but I was offered a job in the city and so I took it). Every time I went to TAFE, I paid for a train ticket as well.

For TAFE, I needed a certain wardrobe. While it wasn't an official uniform, we needed clothes in black, white and navy and generally professional looking. Having come directly from school, and working in a fashion store...I didn't have the need to have work-type clothes. So I had to pay for those as well.

To work in the store that I worked in, I had to wear store jewellery. So I had to buy that as well (which was kind of bittersweet...). I also had to pay for TAFE...and it was a course which was NOT government funded and therefore no concession rate.

I'm not trying to whinge, but my point is, there are plenty of people who are not screwing over the system...and who generally NEED their money. Vouchers can't solve everything...like my rent, my train fares, my uniforms and my TAFE. They could have given me food and clothing vouchers - but I didn't need food vouchers (my mother bought food for us) and perhaps the stores that the vouchers would be for would not stock exactly what I needed.

So, yeah, it's fair to direct debit all the losers scamming the government...but for those who aren't, I don't think they should be punished in any way. If they DON'T get jobs by a certain time, then they HAVE to do Work for the Dole or something similar. If they don't, their payments are stopped. So I don't really see what the problem there is.

[MonkeyMum05]

Since when is education basically free for people on welfare benefits?
I am aware of a program to help single mothers into study... but everyone else?
I am in no way saying that people on welfare should have their courses payed for, just don't believe what pestiferous said is correct.
When I was a teen, with no parental support, I chose to study at Tafe, and I can assure you that it was not free! There was a consessional fee rate, but it was still a large amount of money, when trying to pay rent, food, textbooks, travel etc. Centrelink definately did not help out with that at all. (Nor should they have to).

Not intending to wage war, pestiferous, Just felt the need to dispute what you stated earlier.

[MonkeyMum05]

Onto the original topic... I believe that the centrepay thing is a great idea!
I wish it was around when I was a child, maybe then I would've had something to eat other than 2 minute noodles.

[the_queen]

Pestiferous, this thread is supposed to be about "encouraging" (albeit compulsorily) parents to spend welfare money on their children. This has NOTHING TO DO with dole-bludgers. Whole other issue. Start another thread on that, if you so wish.


Anyway, MonkeyMum05 thank you, as you said - back to the ORIGINAL topic...

[pestiferous]

this thread is supposed to be about "encouraging" (albeit compulsorily) parents to spend welfare money on their children. This has NOTHING TO DO with dole-bludgers. Whole other issue. Start another thread on that, if you so wish.


Anyway, MonkeyMum05 thank you, as you said - back to the ORIGINAL topic...

:sleeping: Nothing to do with dole-bludgers? What else would you call someone who does not spend their payment on the children it is intended for ?

it seems to me that yelling "Offtopic" makes an easy out when attempting to force no response to statements made in replace of legitimate points of view.

The original topic questions the idea of tighter control over welfare benefits i have simply stated that i believe this control should not be reserved for the few obvious "abusers" but should extend to all welfare payments, with some leniency for single parents as they do face difficulties (i.e. the availability of suitable / affordable childcare) that other benefit type recipients do not face.

There are no black and white answers in this world and all topics esp ones as complicated as welfare benefits require multiple "offtopic" aspects to be discussed to allow a clear understanding of others points of view.

who knows with the allowance of OPEN discussion we may even gain insite or information we may otherwise have missed ?

if you disagree with my opinion then convince i am wrong i am honestly open to intelligent correction.




Since when is education basically free for people on welfare benefits?
I am aware of a program to help single mothers into study... but everyone else?


I am not certain of the details, but i do know that NSW tafe offers 1 free course per year to any benefit holder, once a person is studying even part time with tafe they recieve a student ID card which gives free library and internet access and discounts on various study related purchases as well as bus and train fares.

i think pensioners even recieve free train travel anyway ?

I am not saying these discounts come close to covering the true costs but they are a LOT cheaper than paying full price. and 100 times better than staying at home wishing life was better.

In queensland benefit holders are given a %50 discount on course fee's, there are also education entry payments, pensioner education allowances for approved courses part and full time (even long distance "mail order" education can be completed to recieve these additional payments) unfortunately as the saying goes, i "know only enough to be dangerous" about these payments lol but from what i have been told they are enough to cover the ACTUAL cost of study. in this example i believe the comment "practically free" to be a fair judgement.


I am quite a simple person while i live comfortably i do not believe we live in the lap of luxury. I do not drink, prefer a decent home cooked meal to an expensive restaurant, i cook from scratch and not from packets, i abhore "poker" machines and do not gamble, i mow my own lawns (though i'd be damned if i'll ever sew lol)

we could afford to eat out every night of the week, i could blow my entire wage "at the pub" but i prefer to spend the money i save doing things myself on those little extra's for my children.

HOWEVER: should i ever require benefits i would be more than happy to simply know the utilities would be paid and food would be on our table because they are things i would worry most about i do not believe tax payers should hand me cash to pay for trips to the cinema, foxtel or mobile phones or internet accounts etc (services that are in no way necessary)

we all have to make sacrifices in life, if an alternative system can be found (even if it seems "unfair" to those who do use it wisely) isn't it better for those few to suffer for a short time than to have the abusers take advantage longterm ?

consider the additional funding available to ALL through health and education should a system that forces short term reliance be found.

[SassyMummy]

I was under the impression that the suggested direct debit bill-paying was for parents on benefits, moreso than those simply on the dole. Maybe I was confused. I dunno.

Still, as I stated earlier, there is no way I'd like for anyone to tell me what to do with the money I get from Centrelink. Since I don't pay for any utilities as such, I wouldn't NEED them to be taken from my payments. I pay rent and board to my mother, privately, but nothing is in my name, so I am not responsible for ANY bills (apart from Tax at tax time).

I DO have things I need to spend money on though - food for example. Clothing for both myself and my daughter. Formula and Nappies. Travel expenses (and I'm not talking about holidays...just general day-to-day stuff). Any little "extras" DD might need due to illness or otherwise.

Yes - I do get to spend money on things I don't necessarily NEED - like a new toy ever now and again for DD, or a night out to dinner or movies(providing I can get someone to watch DD for a few hours...which is VERY rarely...).

While we can survive on the bare minimum, I don't feel bad about saying that I don't think I should have to JUST survive. Maybe I could get a job - but I've figured out that I can then only get a LITTLE more than I get from Centrelink...which will then be spent on childcare. While I might actually "earn" my money, I'd much rather stay home with DD and be a SAHM if the financial situation will be pretty much the same.

I DO think that those who are getting evicted regularly because they're wasting their money on drugs/gambling/themselves should be monitored - but for the others...it's unfair and un-necessary. While we MAY live in a world of sacrifice, the right to choose what I spend my money on should be up to me and me alone, unless I am blowing it on stupid things.

Oh - and as for 50% off TAFE for anyone on a payment in QLD...when did this come in? In 2004, only two years ago, I had to pay THE FULL FARE for my course because it wasn't government funded...therefore there was no concession rate. I also did not get free or discount travel because it was a part-time course and therefore did not qualify for a student card.

[kymmy]

In theory it is a good idea
to help the kids
But what is a
BAD PARENT?

[pestiferous]

http://www.tafensw.edu.au/students/support/travel.htm


http://www.tafensw.edu.au/about/money.htm#exemptions

Exemptions:You may be eligible for an exemption from paying the TAFE NSW fee if:

* Age Pension
* Austudy
* Carer Payment
* Disability Support Pension
* Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment
* Family Tax Benefit Part A (maximum rate)
* Farm Help Income Support
* Mature Age Allowance
* Newstart Allowance
* Parenting Payment (Single)
* Sickness Allowance
* Special Benefit
* Veterans' Affairs Payments
* Veterans' Children Education Scheme
* Widow Allowance
* Widow 'B' Pension
* Wife Pension
* Youth Allowance; or

http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/community/concessions/brochure/stategovt/tafe.html

Government funded subjects A tuition fee exemption of 75% may be available


Adult Community Education (ACE) subjects A tuition fee exemption of 50% may be available


All TAFE Queensland fees and charges are levied according to the Training and Employment Regulation 2000 and the Institute Fee Policy.

Another option may be payment plans that offer time to pay fees for government funded training where the student fees are more than $75. Students experiencing financial disadvantage are provided with substantial fee relief. In situations of extreme financial hardship, the Institute Director may exempt the student from the fees.

Add to this the additional pensioner education payments, paid on top of normal benefits which cover any remainig fee's and required study items. sounds free to me.

On a final note, I too would much rather stay home with my children, It would be less tiring, less stressful and so much easier than actually having to work. Unfortunately i consider it MY RESPONSIBILITY to support myself to the best of my ability.

If current employment options leave one in the same financial position as living off benefits, then one should take advantages of the oportunities offered to increase their education level to one that offers more suitably paid employment.

As i stated earlier welfare is not a right but a privilage and should be considered a form of short term emergancy help, NOT a longterm solution. though i can see now how that belief is subject to ones personal definition of "abusing the system".

[tupper_lady]

It is a good idea in theory, in practice though I really cant see how they will make it work to everyones satisfaction. :thumbsdown:

[Yasmeena]

I am so appreciative of the fact that I live in a country that assists others rather than vilifying them. I am happy to pay taxes so ensure others have a basic quality of life. Dole 'bludgers' or anyone that receives government benefits are not exactly having a great time of it. It is a struggle to live on such a low income. Some people may use it as a 'worst case' glad it was there kind of temporary scenario, others may live on the dole (or on the streets) and have no aspirations towards improving their situation in life. Either way, in my opinion, it is a far more compassionate and humane thing to assist people rather than judge and blame them. They are more to be pitied than scorned. The attitude that many people have, being concerned only of themselves (me, me, me) that is being seen more and more in society seems quite horrid to me.
Regarding the 'nanny state' - i think it would be a very slippery slope indeed. Our current liberal government prides itself on keeping out of our lives (hence the privitisation frenzy, AWA's etc...) the liberal political philosophy is to let us all look after ourselves. i think the proposed Direct Debit idea would be in contradiction to this. I can see how it might seem like a good idea - but on a fundamental level I completely disagree with the idea.
I think there is probably a better way to do it, rather than this sort of Big Brother arrangment. (no I am not refering to the telly show)

[MonkeyMum05]

All TAFE Queensland fees and charges are levied according to the Training and Employment Regulation 2000 and the Institute Fee Policy.

Another option may be payment plans that offer time to pay fees for government funded training where the student fees are more than $75. Students experiencing financial disadvantage are provided with substantial fee relief. In situations of extreme financial hardship, the Institute Director may exempt the student from the fees.

Add to this the additional pensioner education payments, paid on top of normal benefits which cover any remainig fee's and required study items. sounds free to me.
.

Well, all I can say is I definately did not go to TAFE for free... so though it may sound free to you, it certainly isn't always the case.

[MonkeyMum05]

On a final note, I too would much rather stay home with my children, It would be less tiring, less stressful and so much easier than actually having to work. Unfortunately i consider it MY RESPONSIBILITY to support myself to the best of my ability.


I stay home with my child, because I believe that is what he deserves. Unfortunately, I consider it my responsibility to stay home and look after my son, particuarly while he is under 1 year old. (I guess I am lucky that my husband works and earns enough to pay the bills.)

I really have a problem with the statement you have made. As far as I am concerned, I am 'working' ... being a mum is my job. And, yes, it is extremely tiring and stressful and I can't go home at 5.30pm.

I'm not the type of person to have a child, then expect someone else to be its primary caregiver. I believe it is my job, and my responsibilty.

[pestiferous]

I can tell you hands down - it is no less tiring, no less stressful and by no means "easier" than going to work outside the home.

**************************

That may be the case in your situation,

Personally i find staying home is a breeze when one does not have the additional stresses and responsibilities of work combined with the usual stresses and responsibilities of child rearing.

2 - 1 = 1


2
- 1
____
1
____

no matter how you write it, the answer is 1. I could for my own peace of mind convince myself the answer is 3.

However that would not change the truth, only my definition of it.