Info/Research

Burning Issues - ANOU Info and Research

We have set up a mailing list!

Join our e-mail list! Simply add your e-mail address and you will be able to participate in our discussions

Navigation Bar at the bottom of this page!

Have a look at the DEAD MEN"S SHOES Report from TASCOSS - the first true report about unemployment and its effects on the unemployed and their families.

Double click here to view the contents and introduction plus links to the content

On this page you'll find:

NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW

Elspeth McInnes (Chair of the National Council for Single Mothers in Australia):
Address to the ACOSS Conference regarding Welfare Reform and
Fiona Williams': Good enough principles for welfare

Link to Commonwealth Governments' Response to Welfare Reform and ANOU press release

Link to ACOSS to read about the coalition of welfare agencies speaking up against punitive measures in the Mutual Obligation Initiative
and their newest research on the effectiveness of the Work for the Dole/Mutual Obligation Scheme to get people into employment.

Link to the CPSU and read about the Department for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Businesses' service agreement with Centrelink, which demands a breaching quota be achieved, or Centrelink's funding will be cut by 5%. and their response to Welfare Reform.

NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW

Other Content:

CofFEE Labour Market Forecasts 2001

Quarter	Total Employment (000's)	Labour Force (000's)	Unemployment (000's)	Unemployment (%) Rate
Mar-01	9022.3	9720.5	698.2	7.2
Jun-01	9056.5	9757.0	700.5	7.2
Sep-01	9101.8	9793.6	691.8	7.1
Dec-01	9115.9	9830.3	714.4	7.3
Mar-02	9134.9	9867.1	732.2	7.4
Jun-02	9156.7	9904.1	747.4	7.5
Sep-02	9198.7	9941.3	742.5	7.5
Dec-02	9230.7	9978.6	747.9	7.5

http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/docs/updates/forecasts_2001.cfm

Latest Statistics about Breaching (just scroll on)

Fact1: Dramatic increase since Coalition came into power

Fact 2: How the Government saved A$170 million

Fact 3: Top Ten reasons for breaching

Misleading Centrelink factsheet shows Minister Newman's Secretary's cruelty in SA

Who is leaking Centrelink customer files to the media in SA?

List of Discussion Topics

Interesting sites

11/11/2000

Latest Statistics about Breaching

Source: ACOSS - Welfare Rights Centre

1. FACT: Dramatic Increase in Breaching since the Coalition came into Power

National Breach Figure by Year:

Year	No of breaches
1996	80,424
1997	120,718
1998	165,492
1999	302,494

Percentage Increase in breaches since 1997

Activity Test	291%
Administrative Breaches	208%
Total	250%

Percentage of Newstart Recipients being breached by State

SA/WA	31%
QLD	29%
NSW	28%
NT	25%
ACT	25%
VIC	21%
TAS	13%

Percentage of total breaches by age groups1999-2000

18 - 20	23%
21 - 24	28%
25 - 29	19%
30 - 39	17%
40 - 49	7%
50+	2%

The statistic shows that around 18% of families of Newstart recipients between the age of 25 - 40 are affected by long term (6 months) extreme financial hardship. Six months on reduced benefits means for many the difference between having a home or sleeping in cars.

Once in a car it is very hard for a family to get back into
housing. It costs the charities and welfare organisations
thousands of dollars to rehouse a homeless family.

Are very young people more compliant in the beginning?

Are young people easier to breach, because the person breaching them is usually a little bit older, or if not, at least in a position of authority (feels more comfortable bullying)?

Between 25 - 29 people are beginning to have family obligations. Do children have to starve for 6 months as a result of the 'failure' of their fathers to attend an interview or Centrelink miscalculating benefits or raising unreasonable debts?

Is there a link between increased homelessness (especially the increase of homeless famlies) and Federal government policies' of the Mutual Obligation Initiative and their merciless debt recovery?

FACT 2: How the Commonwealth Government saved A$ 170.6 Million

Savings from breaches on a
state-by-state basis

State A$ in millions

WA	$ 15 mill
NSW	$ 61.1mill
QLD	$ 39.6 mill
VIC	$ 33.6 mill
SA	$ 14.6 mill
TAS	$ 2.7 mill
NT	$ 2.4 mill
ACT	$1.9 mill
Unknown	$ 9.8 mill

Total $ 170.6 million dollar

These savings cost the taxpayer more than they save.

Not only does the economy loose out on real trade and consumption, a lot of additional costs to the individual, the community, and those helping the breached person directly, occurs.

It is hard enough to maintain housing and look for a job and have children over on a weekend on $170.- per week.

On $140.- per week over 6 months one and the other usually has to go.

This brings in the services of charities:

feeding the person and their families (which does not improve the economy as most of the food distributed has already been purchased somewhere)

housing the person and their family with very little financial return (rarely accepted by private landlords, therefore subsidy is always financed by tax payers)

assisting the person/and their family to cope finanically by either paying staff to financially counsel the person and advocating on their behalf and/or making a financial contribution to their bills, in addition volunteers for Emergency Financial Assistance services have to be trained and administered, etc.

assisting the person to cope with the social, emotional and physical affects of the added stress caused by long term financial hardship topped off by the imposition of unreasonable fines. Affects of breaching have been according to our observation in a wide variety of cases:

prolonged periods of malnutrition
sleeplessness,
depression,
shattered self- image and -esteem,
increased aggressive and self harming behaviour,
intense irritability and agitation often leading to domestic violence,
gambling to get over the crisis,
increased drug use and alcoholism,
added stress through relationship tensions, separation and problems with children,
turning to crime to get through
homelessness
suicide.

Percentage of income lost for individual being breached

1. Activity Test Breach	18% for 26 weeks (6 months!)
2. Activity Test Breach	24% for 26 weeks
3. and subsequent Activity Test Breach	no payments for 8 weeks, re-apply, first payment due after ten weeks, if deemed eligible
Admininstrative Breaches	16% for 13/26 weeks
Move to an area with lower employment rate	no payment for 26 weeks (6 months), - never mind if your children need you there or someone else in the family, like your old mum on the farm

Cost to the recipient in money value (single NSA recipient)

- don't forget, they are fathers too and their children come to stay usually once a fortnight and half the holidays, unless they cannot maintain their housing!

1. Activity Test Breach	$ 820.-
2. Activity Test Breach	$ 1,094.-
3. and subsequent Activity Test Breach	$ 1,403.-
Admininstrative Breaches	$ 357.50 or $ 715.-
Move to an area with lower employment rate	$ 4,560.-

Compare that to average criminal fines:

Break and enter	$ 706.-
Sexual assault	$ 452.-
Fraud	$ 721.-
Vehicle theft	$ 627.-
Dangerous driving	$ 609.-
Assault	$ 681.-

FACT 3: The Top Ten Reasons for Breaching

Reasons	No of breaches
Failed to attend info seminar	47 052
Failed to correctly declare earnings	42 368
Did not attend interview with Jobnetwork Provider	35 275
failed to attend 3 or 9 monthly interview	19 380
failed to attend Centrelink Office interview	17 848
failed to reply to a letter	14 006
voluntary unemployed	12 202
failed to enter agreement	11 449
failed to comply with agreement	10 353
failed to attend Work for the Dole	10 140

Source: ACOSS and Welfare Rights Centre

Percentage of total breaches

Source: ACOSS and Welfare Rights Centre

Another very interesting source of information can be found in the appendix of the Annual Report of the Department for Family and Community Services. One of the appendices shows a listing of how many people were caught out cheating in regard to their income. The table shows, how much benefit the new data matching service has given the taxpayer. It also shows that the old method of getting people to 'dob in a bluder' is more effective than the data matching method. Despite the great effort of the government to catch poor single mums, making a bit on the side with once off jobs, the overall rate of fraud is minimal: around 4 % maximum.

Another interesting fact is that only very few people appeal Centrelink's decision. Especially young and indigenous people lack the resources and knowledge to defend themselves. Of those appealing only around 20% are represented by Welfare Rights Centres.

Of those cases reaching the Social Security Tribunal just under half of the cases are overturned.

This shows that Centrelink makes a lot of errors: almost half of the decisions they make are wrong or at least contain errors, according to the Social Security Act.

Misleading Centrelink Pamphlet demonstrates the Cruelty

of the Minister for Family and Community Services

On the Bulletin Board, which distributes information from Centrelink and legal services to advocates and staff, Centrelink publishes a "Fact Sheet" about penalties and non-payment periods. This factsheet states clearly that people who have been breached and appeal against the breach, have the right to ask their local Centrelink Office for "payment pending review".

Centrelink is than to decide

whether the client has other income or means of support
whether they have alternative income support for dependants, if any
whether the client has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric condition which may be adversely affected if payment is not continued and
whether the client has been breached before (known as their 'compliance history).

You would think that the option to get your payments re-installed while you are appealing the decision is only fair, especially since it is well known that Centrelink regularly makes mistakes and the person losing their benefits is in severe danger of losing their home and absolute last possessions.

But when I investigated this option further, thinking, to myself that this would be too good to be true and dreaming of spreading the news to all the Emergency Financial Assistance outlets, I noticed, it is up to the discretion of the Secretary of the Department in the State to decide, whether payments should continue.

Trying to find whether any Secreatry ever decided to continue payments pending the outcome of the appeal I found this in

section 131.1: Secretary may continnue payment pending outcome of application for review

section 132.1: The Minister, by determination in writing:

a) is to determine guidelines for the exercise of the Secretary's power to make declaration under section 131 in relatin to social security payment to persons who are subject to an activity test non-payment period; and

b) may revoke or vary those guidelines.

The Minister is currently negotiating about this issue and has not made a determination yet. It is up to the State Secretary's and all States besides South Australia, are allowing payment pending review.

We are calling on the State Secretary of Minister Newman's Department in South Australia to introduce the same fair procedures as are in place in other States. Why is South Australia exempt?

The Federal Government's Department for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (the 'phone card distributors) has a service agreement with its Job Network Providers, in accordance with which they must breach within the limits of the general average. If their breaching rate is below average they are threatened with losing their funding next year.

I say, let's threaten the Jobnetwork Provider with not attending their services and all go to one at the same time, the one with the least breaching quote.

The Federal Government (Minister Newman's Department) also has a service agreement with Centrelink, which is published somewhere on their web site, saying that only 25% of all Newstart breaches can be reversed and only 15% of all Work for the Dole breaches. What is the agenda here? Justice? No, pot luck. This is not a fair review system!

Encourage everyone who gets breached to contact Welfare Rights Centres in your capital city.

Appeal any breach immediately, even if you think you have made a mistake and deserve it. Appeal and ask for continuation of payments. Get advise from your local Welfare Rights Centre.

If you are told that your benefits were incorrect and you have to repay them or if you discover that Centrelink thinks you have to repay a debt, ask for the exact calculations and evidence. Than call Welfare Rights Centre and go through the calculations. You may find at times that Centrelink does not know on what basis the debt was calculated. Also make sure that you are not paying someone else's debts, who has the same or similar name as you.

This has all happened.

Well, hope it makes interesting reading and you can use this material to highlight the nonsense of our current Mutual Obligation Initiative, which is nothing more than an institutionalised 'homebased' laborcamp approach.

Work or die, if there is no work: die.

Who is breaching confidentiality ?

Who is leaking Centrelink customer and Social Security Appeals Tribunal files to the media in Australia?

It seems that Centrelink customers are not protected by the same confidentiality rules and codes as other Australian citizens. Two weeks ago the Adelaide Advertiser published details of a Centrelink customer's files in Rex Jory's column. The same day Rex Jory was interviewed by Leigh McClusky and Tony Pilkington on radio station fiveaa in the morning at 9 am, 24 November 2000.

The interview as well as the article clearly showed that Rex Jory must have had access to a Social Security Tribunal's decision which is not in the public domain and is to be kept confidential, at least without obtaining a Freedom of Information request the file cannot be read by anyone else than the persons directly involved.

We have complained to fiveaa, Ms McClusky and Mr. Pilkington, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, the Advertiser, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

We are demanding that no one, not even Members of Parliament, ought to be able to use confidential information of Centrelink or other Government Department's customers/clients without the customers written permission.

How come that people on government benefits have less rights than convicted criminals? The publication of their personal details is protected, and rightfully so. We demand the right to sue politicians who smear our reputation and try to silence us when we speak up about the nonsense of some of government policies.

How come society allows the Federal Government to silence and enslave us through the powerful blackmail of withdrawal of our basic income?

How come we allow our young people to live in abhorrent poverty, which causes them to develop all kinds of unhealthy survival strategies?

Watch this space for further news!

Discussion Topics: Please sent your contributions! Double click here

ne of the first topics to discuss is who can become a member