Retail alcohol block ‘feasible’ - cashless credit card for welfare recipients (read aboriginal Australians).

[CLICKHEREx]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/retail-alcohol-block-feasible/story-fn59niix-1227009312716


The Australian
August 01, 2014 12:00AM


Natasha Bita
National Correspondent
Brisbane

SUPERMARKETS have told Andrew Forrest it is technically possible to block spending on alcohol, gambling and cigarettes through a new “cashless welfare card’’.

As revealed in The Australian yesterday, the Forrest report recommends the Abbott government replace cash welfare benefits with a Healthy Welfare Card, which could be spent only on essentials such as groceries, rent, clothing and power bills. Aged pensioners and war veterans would continue to get cash through Centrelink.

The debit card, issued by a bank or building society of their choice, could not be used to withdraw cash, and would be programmed to block the sale of alcohol, gift cards, pornography, gambling and “other illicit services’’. Although cigarettes are not named in the report, it is understood the ban would extend to tobacco.

“More and more we are becoming a cashless society and this is the way we should manage welfare payments,’’ the report says. “Cash from government quickly converts to illegal drugs and alcohol abuse, particularly widespread amongst Australia’s youth.’’ The report says eftpos has assured Mr Forrest it can adjust its scheme rules to make the card function with supermarket giants Coles, Woolworths and IGA, as well as the Commonwealth, Westpac, ANZ and National Australia banks. The cards would be redeemed at any Australian store or online e-tailer that accepts Visa and Mastercard with eftpos payment facility — with the exception of alcohol and gaming outlets.

“This will enable welfare recipients to purchase the goods and services required to maintain healthy lifestyles, yet block those goods and services — such as alcohol, drugs and gambling — that damage healthy, family wellbeing and ability to enter or return to work,’’ the report says.

“Communities … are desperate to stop the incoming tide of drugs and alcohol enabled by untied welfare cash. This new system presents an opportunity to potentially remove the hundreds of millions of dollars from the market that provides the lifeblood of organised crime.’’

A spokesman for Woolworths confirmed the retailer — which owns Big W discount stores and BWS and Dan Murphy’s liquor outlets — had discussed the plan with Mr Forrest. He said the company did not have a view on whether a card should be introduced, but “if we got asked to do so, that would be technically feasible’’.

The Forrest report proposes hefty on-the-spot fines for retailers who let people withdraw cash or buy alcohol with the cards — of $2000 for every $100 misspent. It suggests the cards could use the same technology as corporate credit cards, which block access to gambling outlets.

It reveals that policing experts warned Mr Forrest that organised crime networks will “attempt to subvert the new system’’.

“Additional police and support services may be temporarily needed as the card removes the ability to support long-term alcoholism and drug addiction through cash purchases,’’ the report says. “It will be important to provide adequate support for individuals needing to adjust to the new arrangements.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________

So, how would they stop people from buying fruit juice, jam, honey, sugar, canned fruit, baker's yeast, etc. and fermenting their own "Chateau Yatala", because that is one thing which will result?

In the USA, with their "food stamps" system, businesses set up stores to buy food from welfare recipients who have used their food stamps to buy it; the people take the cash, then visit their crack cocaine, meth, or heroin dealer.

Edited August 2, 2014 by CLICKHEREx

[Slocombe]

The Coalition already implemented this as part of their NT 'intervention' and knows this will work. Presumably this is the supermarkets way of publicly supporting the proposal.

One part of me thinks that the public should participate in an (illegal) secondary boycott. The other part of me thinks 'sucked in' to all the idiots that were happy to see Indigenous people have their income managed and are now outraged that they will cop the same treatment.

Edited August 2, 2014 by GHBeer

[DiscoStu]

this is a government who is apparently against "big government" and the "nanny state"

[shortly]

Yeah, i've seen more than one household trading food for tobacco & drink, just means they can afford even less.

Mind you i might just be the catalyst for an evolution in peoples behavior ?

Or not.

[ThunderIdeal]

welfare itself would come under 'big government', along with other services that help manage the lives of people who can't manage their own.

i'm all for it. if you want to spend money on stupid shit then get your own money.

Edited August 2, 2014 by ThunderIdeal

[shortly]

Yeah, i've seen more than one household trading food for tobacco & drink, just means they can afford even less.

Mind you i might just be the catalyst for an evolution in peoples behavior ?

Or not.

Actually it will be interesting to see just how far they extend it? Family tax benefit part A?

That would have to be at least half of the working families in australia?

Would they freeze up cash already accumulated over half a lifetime? Or an inheritance?

These sorts of rules tend to get tossed around like blankets. Cover as much as they can to try to stop people dodging it.

[theuserformallyknownasd00d]

And petty crime sky rockets!

[-YT-]

the Australian... lol. next they'll want us to give up our rights for some sort of vague quasi notion... oh wait

Cmon TI wheres your heart! haha

[shortly]

We certainly seem to have found ourselves in an very ideologically driven system.

Which begs the question of just how long before their ideology is dashed upon the rocks of reality?

[Anodyne]

I think no one has pointed out the worst problem with these cards - the card holders would have no choice but to shop at Woolworths! (or wherever). I guarantee that I can buy a lot more (& healthier) food at my local grocer. Plus the local grocer doesn't even sell alcohol, so there's one problem avoided.

[shortly]

Whats the bet this is more about Coles & Woolies being concerned about securing their market share than any concern that politicians or bureaucrats have for people.

Perhaps its time to replace leaders with people who are just in front?

[ThunderIdeal]

the Australian... lol. next they'll want us to give up our rights for some sort of vague quasi notion... oh wait

Cmon TI wheres your heart! haha

nah.

fuck it.

if you told me how shit everything has been lately and you can't afford rent or food and i gave you a handout which you spent on stupid shit, then you've abused my goodwill and generosity. there is no difference. as an australian you're entitled to welfare because as a nation australia shows some generosity to those who are struggling the most, so that they can meet their basic needs and those of their dependents. it's a bit of a concession to socialism, but it shows that we care for everyone and want everyone to have a fair go.

if you're underprivileged in some countries, too fucking bad, you carry on starving and freezing, or you can die in the gutter. if the idea behind welfare was for recipients to have a comfortable allowance with spare cash to throw around living your days out on comfort, then it wouldn't exist!!

i'm guilty of spending welfare on stupid shit, but i was young once and therefore stupid. if you think stupid shit is more important than basic necessities then as far as i'm concerned the money should be going somewhere else, and it makes me pretty furious that people think it's all a laugh, but hey, this is australia, the lucky country with it's head up its ass.

[-YT-]

i dunno seems like a bit of generalization/stereotyping going on here. Im not sure its a big a problem as its made out to be im not disagring there arent people who work the system or waste money on crap, but for the large majority one would assume the necessities of life like you said shelter, food, etc would be the main priority.

my haha wasnt so much a laugh at the issue but your remarks sorry didnt mean to stir you up. guess i just assumed you would have a more social bent and or question the reliability of the article.

So far the data has been inconclusive on how well something like this actually works that said doesn't look to be that much study has actually been undertaken - since the "intervention", there's also the point of associated costs which in preliminary trials from what i remember seemed to be fairly high. so i guess time will tell.

Guess i should say im not against it at all but rather would like to see some empirical evidence on this scourge before we jump the gun and implement reforms like with the intervention.

Edited August 3, 2014 by -YT-

[CLICKHEREx]

I can imagine some enterprising people starting up businesses whereby they offer to shop for people's groceries, and deliver them for a modest fee; say $5. They produce the receipt; the householder pays in cash, which those people are then free to do whatever they want with it.

[Darklight]

I think it's a bullshit idea and heavily favours major retailers over smaller and local ones

Lots of local produce markets sell better quality food cheaper than the retail giants. Most of the stallholders don't offer credit card facilities. These people are overall a reasonable sized economic force in my small town economy and the loss of customers would be devastating. Potentially make more people more reliant on welfare too.

Who decides what is essential, and when? If your money can only be used to pay bills and buy food at major outlets, what would happen if you, say, decided to use some of your dole or disability allowance to buy some chooks and make a chook pen? Is that essential, given that it potentially saves you money and provides healthy meat and eggs for your family and maybe some for trade with other locals?

[theuserformallyknownasd00d]

What about clothing? Would they be subjected to just say big W or an "op shop" sorta system?

[theuserformallyknownasd00d]

If the tv or fridge broke would the government then install some sort of program to cover these things? Man I'm holding onto my job..... So scary