The Financial Counsellors Information Page

Financial Counselling students and teacher 2002. Kangan College, Victoria-Australia

These are some of the students and their teacher of Financial Counselling,2002 Kangan College

Information about financial counselling practices, experiences and much more.
**************************************************
BASIC BUDGET WORKSHEET

CATEGORY------- MONTHLY BUDGET-- AMOUNT MONTHLY ACTUAL AMOUNT DIFFERENCE
INCOME:
Wages Paid
Bonuses
Interest Income
Capital Gains Income
Dividend Income
Miscellaneous Income
INCOME SUBTOTAL

EXPENSES:
Mortgage or Rent
Utilities: Gas/Water/Electric/Trash
Cable TV
Telephone
Home Repairs/Maintenance
Car Payments
Gasoline/Oil
Auto Repairs/Maintenance/Fees
Other Transportation (tolls, bus, subway, etc.)
Child Care
Auto Insurance
Home Owners/Renters Insurance
Computer Expense
Entertainment/Recreation
Groceries
Eating Out
Gifts/Donations
Healthcare (medical/dental/vision, inc. insurance)
Hobbies
Interest Expense (mortgage, credit cards, fees)
Magazines/Newspapers
Federal Income Tax
State Income Tax
Social Security/Medicare Tax
Personal Property tax
Pets
Miscellaneous Expense
EXPENSES SUBTOTAL

NET INCOME (INCOME LESS EXPENSES)
If an expense is incurred more or less often than monthly, convert it to a monthly amount when calculating the monthly budget amount. For instance, auto expense that is billed every six months would be converted to monthly by dividing the six month premium by six.
**************************************************

Debt collection and the Trade Practices Act June 1999

Introduction.
Section 60 of the Trade Practices Act provides that:
a corporation shall not use physical force, undue harassment or coercion in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer or the payment for goods or services by a consumer.
The scope of s. 60 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 has not been tested in court, and thus there is little direct guidance for business or consumers. The Commission has developed this guideline, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, for the benefit of both business and consumers. It hopes the guideline will help clarify community expectations of businesses when collecting debts.
The Commission considers that the conduct described in the guideline would, in most circumstances, be at risk of contravening the relevant laws. It should be noted, however, that a contravention of s. 60 does not act as a defence to any obligation to pay a debt.
Section 60 applies to more than just debt collection. Section 60 applies to both the supply of goods or services and the collection of payment for goods or services. This guideline specifically deals with debt collection issues, but many of the principles could also apply to businesses engaged in the supply of goods or services.
The guideline is not intended to limit the interpretation of s. 60 as it applies to the supply or goods of services.
Debt collection activities and consumer responsibilities
Debt collection is a legitimate and necessary business activity. Consumers who are legally bound to pay or repay money are expected to meet that obligation unless they have a valid defence.
Creditors and their agents are entitled to take reasonable steps to contact a debtor and make arrangements that will enable the debt to be repaid. However, s. 60 places broad limits on the conduct of collectors in order to protect consumers from unfair or intimidating behaviour.
A consumer’s failure to meet obligations under a debt may arise from a variety of circumstances. In some cases a consumer may deliberately try to avoid repaying a debt. In others a failure is not deliberate, but arises from over-commitment and/or major changes in financial circumstances resulting from, for example, unemployment, business failure, ill health, divorce or separation. Or default may arise because a consumer disputes the validity, existence or amount of the debt.
Often, where liability is not disputed, repayment arrangements can be made which enable a consumer to repay the debt over a period of time. The Commission strongly encourages collectors to negotiate realistic repayment arrangements with a debtor and, in doing so, to remember that debtors may have debts with a number of different creditors. Realistic repayment arrangements stand the best chance of being maintained. If there is a process of bona fide negotiation it may reduce the risk of contravening s. 60.
Consumers also have important responsibilities in relation to their debts. They should advise creditors of current contact details, and contact them when financial difficulties occur. Early communication between debtors and creditors — as soon as financial difficulties arise — will help to resolve the matter more quickly and reduce the risk that arrears become unmanageable.
The Commission encourages consumers and creditors/collectors to use financial counsellors and other professionals who may be able to assist the debtor to manage their financial situation.
Is this guideline law?
This guideline does not have legal force. The Commission cannot make law; this is the role of the Parliament and the common law. Nor can the Commission provide a definitive interpretation of the law; this is the role of the courts.
However, as an enforcement agency the Commission considers it useful to identify the type of conduct it considers may be at risk of contravening s. 60 of the Trade Practices Act (and/or other legislation). To decide whether the legislation has been breached the Commission approaches each matter on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all relevant circumstances. Compliance with the guideline is only one factor to be considered. This means that full compliance with the guideline can help minimise the risk of breaching the law, but cannot provide businesses with a guarantee against litigation.
Private persons can also institute proceedings for a contravention of s. 60. Compliance with the guideline will not necessarily protect businesses from litigation initiated by private parties.
The Commission hopes that businesses engaging in collection activity will implement the guideline, both in terms of the text and the spirit of the document.
Guideline subject to legislation and mandatory codes
As this guideline does not have legal force, compliance with it is subject to relevant legislative provisions or mandatory codes of conduct. This includes:
 regulations or legislation governing service of process and statutory notices;
 legal repossession activities and other legal enforcement of security interests;
 court ordered instalment arrangements;
 obligations under the Privacy Act;
 obligations under the Bankruptcy Act;
 obligations under industry licensing regulations; and
 any conduct specifically authorised by a court.
Although the guideline has been drafted, as far as possible, to minimise the chance of inconsistency with other legislation, it is the responsibility of individual businesses to ensure that they comply with all applicable laws.
Scope of the guideline
These guidelines have been developed considering only the collection of debts from individual consumers. The scope of s. 60 is wider than just debt collection from consumers. For example, many of the principles discussed here may also be appropriate when collecting business debts.
It is important to remember that s. 60 is not limited to debt collection situations. It applies to many other situations where ‘undue harassment or coercion’ are used in supply of goods or services to consumers, or the payment for goods or services by a consumer.
Penalties
Contravention of s. 60 is a criminal offence and can lead to the imposition of fines of up to $200 000 for a corporation, or $40 000 for an individual. Civil remedies for a contravention can include injunctions, damages, other orders, and enforceable undertakings.
Principals and agents
Where a creditor uses an agent for collection purposes, the creditor (as principal) may be liable for any conduct of the agent that contravenes the Trade Practices Act. Conduct principles
A corporation is entitled to take reasonable steps to pursue a debt that is owed to it or its client if the corporation is a debt collector. A debtor is entitled to be treated fairly, with respect and courtesy, and should not be unduly harassed or coerced.
This guideline provides direction on:
 communicating with the debtor at, or away from, their workplace;
 personal visits;
 frequency of communications;
 allowing arrangements and other processes to work;
 communicating with a debtor’s representative;
 communicating with third parties;
 misleading or deceptive conduct;
 coercion;
 language, violence, and physical force; and
 documentation and information.
Communicating with the debtor away from their workplace
Principle
A collector has a right to communicate with a debtor to facilitate collection. However, all communications should be made for reasonable purposes, and debtors should not be unduly harassed, or subject to communications at unreasonable hours.
Example ...
 A collector should not communicate with a debtor at any unusual time or place, or at any time or place that the collector knows or should know, would be unreasonable or substantially inconvenient to the debtor unless the debtor has given prior consent directly to the collector.
A collector can assume that the convenient time for communicating with a debtor is after 7.30 a.m. and before 9 p.m. local time at the debtor’s location, unless the collector is informed otherwise.
A collector should not communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a debtor before 7.30 a.m. or after 9 p.m. unless:
 the debtor authorises communication at other hours; or
 the collector has made reasonable efforts, over a reasonable period of time, to contact the debtor after 7.30 a.m. and before 9 p.m., and the collector has made reasonable attempts to contact the debtor using other, less intrusive, methods of communication.
Note: Section 43 of the Fair Trading Act (SA) prohibits personal calls or telephone calls on a public holiday for the purpose of demanding payment.
 A collector should not communicate with a debtor at any time or place where the debtor has requested that no communication be made, or using any mechanism that the debtor has requested not be used, unless:
 the debtor has not provided an alternate and effective contact mechanism; or
 the debtor does not respond through the agreed contact mechanism within a reasonable time.
Communicating with the debtor at the debtor’s workplace
Principle
Collectors should attempt to communicate with debtors outside of work where appropriate and possible, particularly for the initial contacts. Collectors should ensure that where communications or visits need to be made to a debtor’s workplace, those contacts are handled discretely and with care. Debtors should be able to request that no communications be made at the workplace, provided that an alternative and effective contact mechanism is available.
Example ...
 A collector should not communicate with a debtor at the workplace, or visit the debtor at the workplace unless:
 the debtor has specifically requested or authorised communications to be made at the workplace; or
 the debtor has not provided an alternate and effective contact mechanism; or
 the debtor is the proprietor or a director of a corporate proprietor of a business to which the debt relates.
 A collector should not communicate with, or attempt to communicate with, a debtor at the workplace in a manner that:
 is likely to inform third parties of the existence of a debt; or
 discloses more than the name and contact details (including company name only if specifically requested by the third party) of the collector to third parties.
Personal visits
Principle
Where necessary a collector is entitled to communicate with the debtor by visiting in person. However, a collector should respect the debtor’s own, and the household’s privacy and security. Generally a collector should not use personal visits as the initial step in communicating with the debtor, and personal visits should not be used if other, less intrusive, means of communication are available and effective.
Example ...
 A collector should not visit a debtor in connection with the collection of any debt at any unusual time or place, or any time or place known or which should be known to be substantially inconvenient to the debtor, without the prior consent of the debtor given directly to the collector.
A collector can assume that the convenient time for making a personal visit to a debtor away from the workplace is after 7.30 a.m. and before 9 p.m. local time at the debtor’s location, unless the collector is informed otherwise.
A collector can assume that the convenient time for making a personal visit to a debtor at the workplace is during normal business hours (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.), unless the collector is informed otherwise.
 A collector should not visit a debtor at the workplace if the debtor has so requested, and has provided an alternative and effective contact mechanism.
 A collector should immediately leave private property or the debtor’s workplace if requested to do so by the debtor or another person.
 A collector should not remain in the vicinity of the debtor’s location for an extended length of time for the purpose of:
 intimidating or embarrassing a debtor; or creating an impression that the debtor is under surveillance.
Systems for complying with s. 60
Effective compliance systems reduce the risk of court action by either the Commission or a private litigant. An important part of an effective compliance system is the training given to staff and agents. This guideline should form part of any training and compliance system introduced by collectors.
A compliance guide for debt collectors has been developed, and designed to be used in conjunction with this guideline.
Definitions
Collector means a person collecting a debt in the course of a business. It includes creditors, independent debt collection agencies, lawyers, government and court officials, and persons collecting on behalf of others where either the collector, or if the collector is an agent, its principal, is a corporation.
Communicate, unless otherwise specified, includes communication by telephone, mobile telephone, fax, email, letter, and telegram.
Debtor means a natural person (or small company debtor) obligated or allegedly obligated to pay a debt. It includes a co-borrower or guarantor of the debtor.
Reasonableness is assessed according to an objective standard, taking into account all relevant circumstances.
Third party means any person other than the debtor, but does not include a debtor’s legal representative, trustee, or other authorised representative, or a guarantor or co-borrower. Nor does it include a related entity of the collector.
**************************************************

SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL
*************************************************
CASE STUDIES 2001

Case Study No. 1 - Rate of age pension (investment income)
Sylvia, who was single, started receiving age pension in October 1997. She still worked part time, earning $5,000 a year. She also had a number of investments. These included $1,000 in a non-interest-bearing cheque account, $10,000 in an old passbook account earning 1% per year, $60,000 in shares in various public companies and $20,000 in a range of term deposits earning between 2% and 4% a year. Centrelink attributed an income of $3,942 to these investments, deeming almost all of them to be earning either 3% or 5% per year. In combination with her part time work, this significantly reduced Sylvia's pension.
Sylvia argued that this was unfair as her accounts and most of her term deposits were earning less than 3% per year, and many of her shares had not had dividends declared at all during the period in dispute.
All the investments fell within the definition of 'financial assets'. The first $30,400 is deemed under the Act to earn income at the current 'below threshold rate' of 3% set by the Minister; this came to $912 per year. The amount in excess of $30,400, that is the remaining $60,600, is deemed to earn income at the 'above threshold rate' set by the Minister (5% at the time). This translates to a further $3,030 per year.
The total of these amounts - $3,942 - is the amount imputed by Centrelink. Although this may be greater than the actual return on the investments during the period in question, the Act requires this approach to certain forms of investments. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
**************************************************
Case Study No. 2 - Disability support pension
Graeme applied for disability support pension on the basis that a back injury prevented him from working. His working life had been solely in heavy labouring positions. He had left school at the age of 15 and the only education or training he had had since was on the job.
On the basis of the medical evidence available, Graeme suffered frequent pain and had lost about half the range of movement in his neck. In addition he had lost at least half the range of movement in his back. This gave him an impairment rating of 20 points under the Impairment Tables in the Social Security Act, which meets one of the requirements to qualify for the pension.
However, Centrelink rejected Graeme's claim on the basis that he did not have a 'continuing inability to work'. The Health Services Australia (HSA) medical officer who assessed Graeme for the pension had said that he was presently incapable of any work but would be fit for light work, not involving constant sitting or standing, within 2 years. Centrelink relied on this assessment in preference to the report of Graeme's treating GP, who said he would never be able to work again.
On appeal to the SSAT, Graeme provided a detailed report from his orthopaedic surgeon, who had been responsible for his care over a number of years. The orthopaedic surgeon outlined serious restrictions on Graeme due to both loss of movement and pain caused by his injuries. In her view, Graeme's condition would not improve and he would be unable to carry out full time work, or to undergo training for work, indefinitely. Both in its own light, and given the rest of the evidence available, the Tribunal found this report more authoritative and more persuasive than the opinion of the HSA medical officer.
The Tribunal concluded that Graeme would be unable to carry out any full time work, or to undergo education or training to qualify for other forms of work, for at least the next 2 years. Graeme therefore had a continuing inability to work. Subject to the other requirements under the Act, he qualified for disability support pension.
**************************************************
Case Study No. 3 - Marriage like relationship/debt/debt recovery
A person generally cannot qualify for parenting payment (single) (formerly sole parent pension) if they are a member of a couple. The phrase 'member of a couple' is defined in section 4 of the Social Security Act. It includes a person living with a member of the opposite sex, not married but in a 'marriage-like relationship'. Section 4(3) lists a number of factors which must be taken into account in assessing whether a relationship is 'marriage-like'.
Karen had been receiving sole parent pension and then parenting payment since 1995. In 1998 Centrelink concluded she had been living in a marriage like relationship with Christopher throughout that time, and she had not notified this. Centrelink cancelled the pension and raised a debt in respect of the payments made from 1995 to 1998. When Karen later claimed newstart allowance, Centrelink started to recover the debt by deducting $70 per fortnight from the allowance.
The Tribunal interviewed Karen separately and then Christopher with Karen present. It considered the financial, social and sexual aspects of the relationship over the four years, the living arrangements, and the degree of Karen's and Christopher's commitment to each other. It concluded that the relationship was not originally marriage-like but became so around mid October 1996. The Tribunal reduced the debt to the amount of pension paid from then until 1998.
The Tribunal then went on to consider whether (and how) the debt should be recovered. It decided that, as Karen had failed to tell Centrelink about the relationship, a debt existed. Her circumstances did not justify waiver (a permanent decision never to recover the debt) or write off (a decision to suspend recovery action until further notice). However, she could not make ends meet, even with Christopher's support, at the current level of withholding of money from her newstart allowance. Having regard to information about Karen's and Christopher's financial circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the withholdings or deductions to $30 per fortnight.
**************************************************
Case Study No. 4 - Carer allowance (formerly child disability allowance)
Anna’s 6 year old son Jorg had an intellectual impairment which meant that he was unable to dress himself or use a toilet without assistance. Jorg had been consistently uncooperative and disruptive during treatment and assessment. Anna claimed child disability allowance in August 1998. She and her doctor completed questionnaires and Jorg was assessed under the Child Disability Assessment Tool as having a positive score of 0.6 (which was less than the positive score of 1 required under section 952 of the Social Security Act for a young person to be a disabled child). Centrelink rejected her claim and she appealed.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the questionnaire completed by the doctor was an accurate reflection of Jorg’s functional ability, emotional state, behaviour and special care needs. It asked another doctor to complete a questionnaire and was satisfied that this was an accurate assessment of Jorg. The Tribunal recalculated Jorg’s score under the Tool and found that he had a positive score of 1.7. As Anna met all the other requirements, she therefore qualified for child disability allowance. The Tribunal set aside the decision and sent the matter back to Centrelink with directions to grant child disability allowance.
**************************************************
Case Study No. 5 - Health care card
Julia applied for a grant of a Health Care Card (HCC) on the basis of low income. Her gross income over the previous 8 weeks had averaged $305 per week; the upper limit for the card being $288 per week. Her application was rejected and she appealed.
The Tribunal could not directly review the refusal to grant a health care card. However, it could review the decision that Julia was not a 'disadvantaged person' under the Health Insurance Act 1973. Being a 'disadvantaged person' is a precondition for being granted a HCC.
Julia argued that her income after tax and deductions for superannuation was below the threshold at which a HCC could be granted. The Tribunal considered section 5B of the Health Insurance Act (which says when a person's low income makes them a 'disadvantaged person'). Income taken into account in assessing entitlement is income as defined in section 8 of the Social Security Act. This is income before tax and before deductions. Therefore, Julia's income was too high to qualify for a health care card under section 5B.
Julia did not meet any of the alternative requirements for 'disadvantaged person' status either. Therefore, she was not a 'disadvantaged person'.
**************************************************
Case Study No. 6 - Youth allowance - away from home rate
David’s parents lived on and worked a farm. The nearest secondary school was 40 kilometres away. However David was not enrolled at the local secondary school. He was enrolled in Year 11 at another secondary school 300 kilometres away and living away from home to do so. Centrelink had rejected his application for the away-from-home rate of youth allowance on the basis that he was not required to live away from home, there being an accessible secondary school nearby which he could attend. David argued that he was attending this school as it was the nearest school which offered subjects in the hospitality and catering areas. These subjects were preconditions for entry into a TAFE course which David hoped to undertake once he had finished Year 12.
After investigating the issue, the Tribunal found that the subjects were a prerequisite for the TAFE course in question and that they were not offered at any school closer to David’s parents. Therefore it was decided that David did need to live away from home for the purpose of education in accordance with the requirements of the Social Security Act 1991. Youth allowance was therefore payable at the away-from-home rate.
**************************************************
Case Study No. 7 - Carer payment - arrears if appeal is successful
Nada lived with her elderly grandfather in order to look after him. He was quite frail and prone to frequent epileptic fits, with a significant risk of injuring himself if he was not supervised. Nada applied for carer payment. Centrelink rejected her claim, both initially and on internal review, and notified her of the outcome of the internal review in May 1998.
Nada appealed in October 1998. Her grandfather had been receiving age pension throughout the relevant period. The Tribunal found that, because of his infirmity and the severity of his epilepsy, he required constant supervision to prevent injury. He was therefore a severely handicapped person.
After talking to Nada, the Tribunal was satisfied that the amount of time she spent caring for and keeping an eye on her grandfather meant Nada was providing 'constant care' as required by section 198 of the Social Security Act. She was therefore qualified for carer payment. However, because she had appealed more than 3 months after being given written notice of the internal review decision, carer payment could only be back paid to the date of registration of her appeal, rather than all the way back to when she originally claimed it.
**************************************************
Case Study No. 8 - Youth allowance - independent rate
Mark was 18 years old. He had left school some months earlier and was unemployed. He applied for youth allowance. His claim was rejected because his parents’ income was too high.
Mark argued that his parents’ income should not be taken into account as he was not living at home and they were not supporting him financially. However, at the time he applied for youth allowance, he had not been in any paid employment. To qualify as independent under 1067A(10) of the Social Security Act, a young person must have supported himself or herself through paid work consisting of:
(a) full-time employment of at least 30 hours per week for at least 18 months during the preceding 2 years; or
(b) part-time employment of at least 15 hours per week for at least 2 years since the person last left secondary school; or
(c) employment, for at least 18 months since the person last left secondary school, earning the person at least the equivalent of 75% of the maximum Commonwealth training award payments for the calendar year in which the 18 months started.
Mark did not meet these requirements and did not meet any of the alternative requirements to qualify as independent under section 1067A. Therefore, the parental income test applied to him.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision.
**************************************************
Case Study No. 9 - Family allowance - split between two parents
Section 5 of the Social Security Act defines when a child is a 'dependent child' of a person. A person can only qualify for family allowance in respect of their dependent children.
Peter and Christine were separated. They had 3 children. Under the terms of a Family Court order made in 1995, Christine had sole custody and Peter had access on alternate weekends and half the school holidays.
Christine was receiving family allowance in respect of the 3 children. At the beginning of 1996, because he was paying significant levels of child support, Peter applied for family allowance to be made to him (or at least for family allowance to be split between Christine and himself). Centrelink rejected his claim for family allowance. Peter made another claim in July and this was also rejected.
Peter appealed both rejections to the Tribunal. Because the outcome of the appeal would affect Christine’s interests, the Tribunal notified her and invited her to apply to be joined as a party to the appeal. Christine did apply and was joined.
Because neither party had any objections, copies of the relevant information on Centrelink’s file were given to both Peter and Christine. The Tribunal spoke to Peter and Christine separately but gave each a chance to respond to what the other said.
After considering what Peter and Christine said, the Tribunal concluded that the children were staying with each parent consistently with the terms of the court order. Under the Social Security Act as it stood until 11 June 1996, the short periods of access (less than two weeks at a time, except possibly for the long summer holidays) did not give Peter a right to have and to make decisions concerning the daily care and control of the children. Therefore, he was not qualified for family allowance and it could not be paid to him.
From 11 June 1996, the wording of the relevant parts of section 5 changed, following similar changes to the Family Law Act. However, the Tribunal concluded that the changes would not affect the outcome in this case. The existing Family Court order continued to operate under the changed Family Law Act. In the terms of the new section 5, Peter did not have legal responsibility for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the children.
The Tribunal affirmed both decisions.
**************************************************

Case Study No. 10 - Youth allowance - family actual means test
Santha enrolled in an Engineering degree and claimed youth allowance for 1999. Santha was 19 years old and living at home. As her parents ran their family business through a company, Centrelink decided to apply the family actual means test and required Santha’s parents to provide their family’s total expenditure and savings for 1997/8.
Santha stated that her family had saved and spent a total of $65,000 in 1997/8. As this was well above the threshold for the family actual means test, Santha was refused youth allowance. She appealed to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal considered Santha’s situation and that of her parents. It considered the formula under which the threshold (the 'after tax income of a notional parent') was calculated, and concluded that the threshold was $37,574. The Tribunal talked at length to Santha’s parents. It accepted that some of their items of 1997/98 expenditure were inflated and reduced them. It also accepted that some of the expenditure was actually by the company rather than the family and related only to the business. It disregarded that expenditure. However, this only reduced the family’s 1997/98 expenditure to $45,000. As this figure was still above the threshold, the Tribunal concluded that Santha was not entitled to youth allowance and affirmed the decision.
**************************************************

Jobs in the Community Services Sector

Jobs available for Community Workers in Victoria.

Consumer Credit Legal Service

Information and help for credit problems

Australia Ombudsman site

Important site for almost anyone.

Community Services Professional's Network

Home

Collective of Selfhelp Groups

Links to most Selfhelp groups in Victoria

This Webpage has been created using the my connected community (mc2) Webpage generator.
my connected community (mc2) is funded by the Victorian Government and coordinated by VICNET

TEXT ONLY