Income management for drug/alcohol users receiving welfare

[footscrazy]

There is a scheme, currently in place in certain regions of the NT, and now being trialled in Shepparton, Bankstown, Rockhampton and Logan, and Playford, where certain people deemed 'at risk', get 50-70% of their welfare payments 'managed'. They receive a Basics Card which can only be used at certain shops, or their money is paid directly to their rent or bills. They are unable to buy alcohol, porn, tobacco, or gamble with the money. People can volunteer for the scheme, and get 50% of their payment managed; those who are compulsorily referred get 70% of their money managed.

Specifically mentioned as benefiting from this scheme are 'at risk' children. Known alcoholics and drug users have been mentioned, as well as families suffering from domestic violence or deemed 'financially vulnerable', but it's unclear to me under what exact circumstances someone would be compulsorily referred.

What does everyone think of this scheme? A positive step or an unwelcome intrusion?

It doesn't sit right with me. On the one hand, I can see the idea that it will benefit children in families where money otherwise doesn't go to rent, bills, food, school fees and so on. It seems that it could be unfairly stigmatising though, with a possibility of people being placed unfairly on the scheme - especially non problem drug users with the misfortune to have their drug use receive attention. I'm not sure that the demeaning nature of being placed on the scheme will be the best way to empower people to take better control of their lives. Could being on the scheme hamper prospective job opportunities or have other negative social effects? Are people likely to just stop using their money for gambling, alcohol, drugs and so on or just find the money elsewhere? Given the money has been paid to these people by the government, perhaps recipients should just be glad they're getting any help at all, and accept the intervention?

MMG. 'Macklin defends Shepparton income management trial.' By John Lewis, July 5, 2012.

Sydney Morning Herald. 'No state deal yet on welfare trial.' By Dan Harrison, July 9, 2012.

Centrelink, Income Management information page.

The Australian. 'New law to quarantine all welfare payments.' By Matthew Franklin, November 25, 2009.

The Australian Heroin Diaries. 'Rudd & Welfare Payments for Drug Users?' May 14, 2008.

Shepparton News. 'Shepparton welfare trial set to begin.' By Ashleigh Williamson, June 29, 2012.

 

[Busty St Clare]

If a child's welfare is in danger because of a drug abusing parent then perhaps they shouldn't be in the care of that parent. It seems like lazy governing that you would need to manage a persons life in order to protect the child. Drug abusers are a resilient bunch and are not going to suddenly stop using just because they have to use their payments on food, rent etc. They are just as likely to sell the food to a third party for cash and still get their fix. In fact a smart drug dealer will probably hand you a list of his weeks groceries and get you to go to the supermarket for him. Ready made delivery service. The child is still suffering either way.

Like anything it sounds warm and fuzzy when written on paper but reality is if there is a will there is a way to get high.

I know of dealers who owned several cheap rental properties that they filled with addicts, who they get to direct their dole payments directly to their accounts each fortnight. They then come around once a day and would dose them with speed and drop off food.... obviously turning a tidy profit. To begin with I didn't believe it but I happen to meet a couple of these poor bastards personally. Never underestimate the entrepreneurial enterprise of the truly evil.

 

[revolve]

If the government begins to micromanage these people's lives, then how are they ever going to be properly responsible for themselves financially?

 

[DeathDomokun]

As Busty said, when it comes to attaining drugs, when there is a will there is a way. On one hand I want to say 'at least they're doing something.' You know, a sort of pity for the government's inability to be useful in any way. Now I know they have the means to actually do something good, which is why part of me also wants to laugh at them and the solutions they come up with to 'drug and alcohol problems' and just generally say 'get fucked'

 

[Crankinit]

I don't think the point is to stop people using drugs or gambling or whatever, just to make sure they don't get thrown out for not paying the rent because of it. Not sure how I feel about it tbh, I think a lot of it comes down to how they implement it.

 

[Sustanon]

This isnt very far from me at all where they have implemented this system. My opinion is that its a great thing. The people who are getting the benefits who spend all their money on alcohol/drugs/ deserve it IMO. A lot of them arnt working (not because they cant but because they choose not too) wasting our tax payers money. I mean sure anyone who would like to purchase substances whether alcohol or drugs whatever should obtain the money through labor because a lot of them spend it all without paying there bills, food for their families and so forth.

It actually ruins the economy too (they say money makes the world go round) Its really sad tbh. Im not saying all of them are like that but this way they are supported. I dont believe they are being controlled. That given money from the government is given for a reason and should be spent on what it needs to be spent on. I kind of feel sorry for the people who are addicted to tobacco because its a widely used drug which is legal and very addictive and a lot of them wont be able to fund their habit. The amount of times I have seen people pick up there centerlink payments heading straight to the damn liquor store or buying a gram or two of an illicit substance. I remember watching that ice ages documentary if I remember correctly they got paid then bought ice on it and were saving that ice til next payday. There are a lot of people out there just like that (including a few of my friends unfortunately).

People asking: If the government begins to micromanage these people's lives, then how are they ever going to be properly responsible for themselves financially?

That's why this is happening because they arnt responsible financially, maybe this way they will learn. I prob sound harsh but there are so many kids out there that are starving because all the money is being spent on recreational things and these kids do not deserve growing up like that.

 

[spacejunk]

dead against this kind of shit.
the government and their social bureaucracy should be spending our tax dollars looking after the health, education and other infrastructure needs of the community rather than micro-managing the lives of people that have troubles.
i don't give a fuck whether people are financially responsible or not.
if kids are at risk, that is tragic for them, but there are other ways to help them than to further alienate people from any kind of system or authority. i think the government likes to boast that people with issues are being taken care of, or whatever (in a punitive sense) but i'm not sure how much they take into account the impact is has on the families involved and those around them.

if governments in this country were serious about improving at-risk people's lives, they would put more funding and effort into mental health treatment.
if people are spending their rent and food money on drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc i think it is a pretty safe assumption to say they have mental health problems.
this paternalistic attitude towards people (especially indigenous people living in isolated communities) doesn't do anything to improve the lives of the people in question. if anything they feel more alienated, more hopeless and fucked over.

they are likely to seek out pleasures in other (cheaper) ways, or commit crimes in order to do so. all i see this sort of thing doing is turning a community with a drinking problem into a town with a a petrol sniffing, theft or prostitution problem.

i'm sure plenty of people here have first-hand experience with the clumsy, ineffective indifference of certain kinds of bureaucracy - the kind that will cut off your welfare payment at the slightest (perceived) indiscretion - that will take weeks to respond to a form you sent in the mail or whatever it is. this kind of system is likely to be no better - a one-size-fits-all approach is really dangerous and careless when dealing with people at risk, people with mental health or substance abuse issues.

more than anything, it reminds me of australia's dark pre-1967 referendum past. not something i think we should be going back to in 2012.


again - great thread footsy.

 

[dais]

i think this is a fantastic incentive especially for a family guy like myself who is in a maintenance program with a pokies problem. this program is something i'm part of. it's even helping cover my ass whilst i'm off visiting my family shortly as when you're travelling short term you can make short term arrangement to be continued while away.

not only does it give my family peace of mind but my ass is covered from temptation to sneak down to the nearest dive bar and have a quick poke where i'd usually lose all my money. can you imagine the wrath from the wife and kids if they were to find out daddy has blown their holiday expenses again. it's a win win situation for the whole family and a great ease of mind for all.

it's something i'll be taking advantage of everytime i travel. i love my family too much to risk such a situation.

 

[NINDY]

i think this is a fantastic incentive especially for a family guy like myself who is in a maintenance program with a pokies problem. this program is something i'm part of. it's even helping cover my ass whilst i'm off visiting my family shortly as when you're travelling short term you can make short term arrangement to be continued while away.

not only does it give my family peace of mind but my ass is covered from temptation to sneak down to the nearest dive bar and have a quick poke where i'd usually lose all my money. can you imagine the wrath from the wife and kids if they were to find out daddy has blown their holiday expenses again. it's a win win situation for the whole family and a great ease of mind for all.

it's something i'll be taking advantage of everytime i travel. i love my family too much to risk such a situation.

Well said, mate. Great, noble words! You'll definitely make it with an honest attitude like that.

 

[footscrazy]

i think this is a fantastic incentive especially for a family guy like myself who is in a maintenance program with a pokies problem. this program is something i'm part of. it's even helping cover my ass whilst i'm off visiting my family shortly as when you're travelling short term you can make short term arrangement to be continued while away.

not only does it give my family peace of mind but my ass is covered from temptation to sneak down to the nearest dive bar and have a quick poke where i'd usually lose all my money. can you imagine the wrath from the wife and kids if they were to find out daddy has blown their holiday expenses again. it's a win win situation for the whole family and a great ease of mind for all.

it's something i'll be taking advantage of everytime i travel. i love my family too much to risk such a situation.

Are you on voluntarily, or compulsorily?

 

[psytaco]

This is a tricky topic, and I am in two minds about this.

On the one hand I believe that government intervention in how people spend their money on the social welfare payments they receive should be kept to a minimum. I think that you people should be free to spend SOME of that money on their vices if they so wish. But at the same it shouldn't be spent at the detriment of their rent and food. I think it would definately be unfair for someone who has been charged with possession at some point being forced to go on this plan, when previously they had managed their welfare payments well enough.

On the otherhand, if you have children and your supporting them financially then they are your first priority. if the welfare money is being spent on drugs or booze then and these children are missing out getting the food they need or school books, then I think the parents money should definately be managed. Once you have children, they are your priority. I believe that this type of welfare management should be enforced in this case. This is much better than welfare payments being cut off or the children being made wards of the state.

Also, part of me thinks that in Australia we are quite lucky to have a reasonably good social welfare system (though it is certainly not perfect). And I think that those who receive it should endeavour to spend it responsibly. That means always putting aside enough money to pay for rent and food. Anything left over I have no problem with being spent on drugs and booze (provided children are not involved). But it is your civic responsibility to put aside money given to you by the government so that you can live off it. I am well aware that it is not enough money to live well, and that some people have expensive drug addictions, but if this is the case and you can't support your addiction financially then it is probably time you started at looking at quitting. Alternatively, if you want to support a drug addiction financially then you probably should look at getting extra income. There are plenty of jobs that pay cash in hand, that don't require any qualifications or education that someone could get to get a bit of money on the side. And I don't think that these jobs are beyond many people, unless of course they have a disability.

 

[dais]

Are you on voluntarily, or compulsorily?

a little of both. the wife kind of insisted it and i've got enough self awareness where i know it's only going to secure a better future for my family further down the road, especially with my track run in the past.

if i were single, had no kids and no prospects i wouldn't even consider such a scheme.

 

[footscrazy]

^ I understand that means in terms of centrelink, you're on it voluntarily though. I'm all for schemes like this as an option for people. If people decide that this will be good for them, that's excellent. I'm not cool with people being forced onto it though, and I think that's a different matter entirely.

 

[dais]

those who opt to voluntarily accept the scheme are helping themselves out in the long run. they're controlling addictions, restructuring their money management issues and ultimately looking after their family, with money left over at the end of the day.

i'd have no problem if it were enforced on those at high risk of blowing their money irresponsibly for the reasons above.