Coopetism 5.8 – Universal Letter to ACOSS Members: Do You Accept the ACOSS Leadership’s Anti-Coopetivity (including, effectively, Betraying the Disempowered)?

[Aside]: The Harris/Trump Election

At their purest, the Left are champions of Cooperation (‘yin’/female) and the Right are champions of Competition (‘yang’/male); however, optimal civilisation requires both be configured as ‘Coopetivity’ – i.e. ‘Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second.’

While Harris predominantly championed Cooperation – for example, appeal to women, justice for all, environmental-sustainability and international law – Trump predominantly championed Competition – for example, appeal to men, MAGA, hard-border and tariffs.

With no disrespect to either Harris or Trump (because we are all products of our nation’s social-infrastructure), politically, they personify the extremes of our current system’s, respective, weaknesses.

In general, throughout the West, with the swings to the extremes increasing, unless our infrastructure is fully Coopetised, the oscillations from Left to Right will continue until it overswings such that there is nation fracturing or collapse.

Yet, if fully Coopetive infrastructure is installed then extremism and populism will dissipate into what may be termed ‘technocratism’ – i.e. politicians who rather than heading-off on harmful tangents, predominantly just manage the existing, already optimal, systems.

…

To:       [Universal/Open Letter] The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) members’ boards & CEOs

ACOSS Member Organisations

State and Territory Councils of Social Service

ACT Council of Social Service (ACTCOSS)	NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS)	Northern Territory Council of Social Service (NTCOSS)
Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS)	South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS)	Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS)
Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS)	Western Australia Council of Social Service (WACOSS)

National Constituency Members

Anti-Poverty Network SA	Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union	Children and Young People with Disability Australia
Scarlet Alliance	Single Mother Families Australia	People with Disability Australia
Wilya Ajjul Janta Aboriginal Corporation	Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA)	Tomorrow Movement

National Members

Adult Learning Australia	Anglicare Australia	Anti-Poverty Week
ARISE Foundation	Asthma Australia	Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
Australian Alcohol and other Drugs Council	Australian Association of Social Workers	Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN)
Australian Association of Adolescent Health	Australian Council of State School Organisations	Australian Education Union (AEU)
Australian Federation of Disability Organisations Australian Foundation for Disability (AFFORD)	Australian Health Promotion Association	Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL)
Australian Institute of For-Purpose Leaders	Australian Men’s Health Forum	Australian Pensioners & Superannuants Federation
Australian Red Cross	Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY)	Australian Youth Affairs Coalition
Australians for Mental Health	Baptist Care Australia	Better Renting
Barnardos Australia	Blue Knot Foundation	Brave Foundation
Brotherhood of St Laurence	Carers Australia	Catholic Social Services Australia
Centre for Social Impact	Centre for Women’s Economic Safety	CHOICE
Christians Against Poverty	cohealth	Community Colleges Australia
Community Housing Industry Association	Community Legal Centres Australia	Community Mental Health Australia
Community Transport Organisation	Consumer Action Law Centre	Consumers Health Forum of Australia
Council of the Ageing (COTA) Australia	Disability Advocacy Network Australia	Djirra
Down Syndrome Australia	Economic Justice Australia	Edmund Rice Centre for Justice and Community Education
Edmund Rice Community Services	Ending Loneliness Together	Families Australia
Family Relationship Services Australia	Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA)	Financial Counselling Australia
First Nations Advocates Against Family Violence (FNAAFV) (formerly NFVPLS)	Foodbank Australia	Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE)
Foundation for Young Australians	Full Stop Australia	Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand
Good Things Foundation Australia	Goodstart Early Learning	Health Equity Matters
Health Justice Australia	Hepatitis Australia	Homelessness Australia
Homes for Homes	Human Rights Law Centre	Inclusion Australia
Indian (Sub-Cont) Crisis & Support Agency	InfoXchange	Jesuit Social Services
Justice Connect	Life Without Barriers	Lojic Institute
MacKillop Family Services	Mind Australia	Mission Australia
MS Australia	National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service	National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation
National Association of People Living with HIV in Australia	National Association of Renters’ Organisations	National Ethnic Disability Alliance
National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Forum	National Older Women’s Network (NOWN)	National Shelter
No To Violence	Office for Social Justice, Australian Catholic Bishops Conference	Oxfam Australia
OzHarvest	Playgroup Australia	Public Health Association of Australia
Reconciliation Australia	Relationships Australia	Save the Children
SecondBite	Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC)	Settlement Council of Australia
Settlement Services International	Social Ventures Australia	Society of St Vincent de Paul National Council
Ted Noffs Foundation	The Benevolent Society	The Salvation Army Australia
The Smith Family	The Y	UnitingCare Australia
Volunteering Australia	Women’s Legal Services Australia	WESNET
YWCA

Associate Members

Accordwest	ADRA Australia Limited	Alannah & Madeline Foundation
Anglicare Community Services	Anglicare Victoria	Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies Ltd. (ACWA)
Australian Refugee and Migrant Care Services Ltd	Australian Services Union (ASU)	Berry Street
Beyond Housing	Blue Sky Community Services	Caboolture Community Care Inc
Cairns Alliance of Social Services	Canberra Community Law	Catholic Social Services Victoria
Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare	Community Housing Industry Association NSW	Community Industry Group
Community Information and Support Victoria	Community Resources Limited	Container of Dreams
CORE Community Services	Cowra Information & Neighbourhood Centre	Down Syndrome NSW
Energetic Communities	Faith Housing Alliance	Family Support Newcastle
Financial Rights Legal Centre	Glebe Youth Service	Homelessness NSW
Housing for the Aged Action Group Inc.	Illawarra Legal Centre	Jannawi Family Centre
Lutheran Community Care	Mountains Community Resource Network (MCRN)	Muru Mittigar Limited
Nepean Community and Neighbourhood Services (NCNS)	Older Women’s Network	PeakCare Queensland Inc
Peninsula Community Legal Centre Inc.	Rainbow Families Inc	Samaritans Foundation
Sector Connect	Social Futures (Northern Rivers Social Development Council)	South East Community Links
South Port Community Housing Group Inc	Southern Youth and Family Services	St John’s Youth Services
Sydney Community Forum	Tangentyere Council Inc.	Tenants Queensland
Think+DO Tank Foundation	United Workers Union (UWU)	Uniting Communities
Uniting Country SA	Welfare Rights Centre (NSW)	Westgate Community Initiatives Group Inc
WESTIR Ltd	Women’s Welfare Australia

Infrastructural-Disempowerment

It’s sometimes asked, “Regarding the Holocaust, how could (almost) entire nations of people either participate in it or stand by as it occurred?”

Yet, in our Universal Liberal Democracies, though under no threat of state execution, citizens allow and some (including numerous social-services executives) facilitate millions being ‘infrastructurally-Disempowered.’

There’re 2 forms of Disempowerment:

1. Infrastructural – i.e. due to sub-civilised/anti-Coopetive national-systems
2. Individual-specific – i.e. disability, infirmity, stage-of-life-related.

Of the 2, ‘infrastructural-Disempowerment’ is the most substantial (perhaps 90% of total Disempowerment) yet it’s easily (and blissfully) eradicated resulting in, beware a possible imagination jolt, a ‘Universal Opportunity Fun-Fair.’

That is, in addition to our existing Coopetive social-infrastructure of:

1. Universal Rule of Coopetive Law
2. Universal Liberal Democracy
3. Universal Education
4. Universal Healthcare,

infrastructural-Disempowerment is eradicated via adding the ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform.’

‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ substitutes The Universal Subsistence Income (USI) for both:

1. Income-Welfare
2. Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW).

‘The Reform’ eradicates Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), poverty, unemployment and, therefore, employee-exploitation yet is both:

1. Nation-uniting (including eliminating Subsistence-Income-based harassment and ostracization)
2. Self-funding, which means there’re far more resources available for, for instance, refugees. 

[Regarding refugees, the Reform also generates goodwill because, due to ‘The Universal Opportunity Fun-Fair,’ we’re happier, far more prosperous and, with zero unemployment, they’re no longer feared for ‘taking’ jobs.]

Lastly, as detailed in previous articles, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ is, indirectly, also the omni-solution to all our other culminating perfect storm of exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro[international/natural] (SEE-in) catastrophes – i.e. it makes our:

1. Socio-                                           Optimally-Interactive
2. Econo-                                          Maximally-Efficient
3. International-Enviro-                   Fully-Sovereign
4. Natural-Enviro-                            Perpetually-Sustainable.

Thus, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ is ‘The Deal of the Century.’

Does any of this make sense?

Apparently not to the ACOSS CEO (even though she’s in her 15^th year of reign, it’s her job to investigate and comprehend such ideas and she’s been exposed to it since 2018).

If 6 years ago, she had been just one of curious, analytical, perceptive or open, ‘the Reform’ may already be in place – for instance, it’s the perfect Covid-lockdown-era income-policy.

…

‘Currently, if ACOSS were a political party, it may be Australia’s most extremist – is that what the Disempowered need from their champion?  And, does it commensurately represent ACOSS’ members?

November 17, 2024

Dear Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) member leader

As per the ‘Correspondence Appendix’ below, The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO) draws your attention to the ACOSS CEO & Board’s anti-Coopetivity (including disregard for the Disempowereds’ interests) and asks, do you accept such behaviour from your representative-peak-body’s leadership?

That is, on the cruciality of ‘infrastructural-Disempowerment eradication’ and its ‘USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ solution, the ACOSS leadership, condemning the Disempowered to indefinite unnecessary suffering, not only refuses to ‘Compete within the context of Cooperation’ – i.e. debate the pros & cons of ‘the Reform’ – they refuse to Cooperate in any minimum sense whatsoever – i.e. perhaps passively-aggressively, they decline the simple civility of acknowledging receiving correspondence.

Given eradicating infrastructural-Disempowerment amounts to the ‘Promised Land’ of ACOSS’ mandate, doesn’t such aloofness, bad faith and intellectual-laziness constitute a betrayal of the Disempowered?

ACOSS’ Importance

ACOSS is Australia’s most crucial Non-Government-Organisation (NGO).

First, it’s Australia’s supreme peak-body representative for the social-services industry and, therefore, should be the Disempowereds’ greatest champion.

Second, its 200 or so members include many of our most iconic organisations including, just to highlight a selection, The Red Cross, The Salvation Army, Vinnies, The YMCA/YWCA, Save the Children, Barnardos, Foodbank, The Smith Family, Anglicare, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Oxfam, Baptist Care, UnitingCare and Choice.

Third, ACOSS’ mandate is Big Policy strategy and national advocacy.

Fourth, it occupies a special contributory place in our Democracy such that both government and the press frequently consult it.

Thus, ACOSS’ importance to its core stakeholders – i.e. the Disempowered – and Australia per se can’t be overstated.

However, currently, in promoting ‘Band-Aiding’ (such as ‘Raise the Rate’) and ignoring-cum-burying the social-infrastructure of ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform,’ its harm is eclipsing any good.

An Australia-Beneficial ACOSS

‘ACOSS should be laser-focused on eradicating infrastructural-Disempowerment.’

To be Australia-beneficial, ACOSS’ leadership must be proficient in 2 facets:

1. Political – i.e. it must be able to impact government policy, which it currently can; however, it’s doing so to the Disempowereds’ detriment
2. Economic – i.e. its policy must maximally benefit the Disempowered subject to strengthening Australia (i.e. ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’), which it isn’t doing.

Regarding the CEO, she presents as economically-illiterate – i.e. one who doesn’t know the difference between a supply curve & a demand curve – and uninterested in learning economic principles, which should have disqualified her from being appointed in 2010.

Her record – despite claiming wins for the Disempowered – is deterioration such that there’re increases in both the percentage of Disempowered and Disempowerment per se.

Meanwhile, with her ‘solutions’ being additional costly government Band-Aiding, though beseeching ‘we have to listen,’ ‘we have to be respectful,’ ‘officials must be accountable’ and ‘we are all in this together,’ hypocritically, it’s ‘do as I say, not as I do’ – i.e. she’s ignoring the most powerful Disempowered-benefiting idea put on the table this century whose benefits include being self-funding and both Left and Right have reason to support.

In sum, ACOSS takes up enormous prime public policy real estate and media air yet its behaviour and policy are counterproductive to the interests of both the Disempowered and the nation.

This atrocious performance indicates the Disempowered (& Australia) need a new ACOSS CEO.

Regarding the Board, which seems too CEO-lockstep cosy, it needs 1 or 2 high-profile members with strong economic backgrounds – for example, when she retires (hopefully not for many years), Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock should be approached.

Clearly, national economic policy formulation and advocacy requires national economic policy expertise and credibility.

Thus, the CDO calls for a transformation of ACOSS leadership and, particularly, a change of CEO because ACOSS appears to be a case of ‘the tail wagging the dog’ …

While the non-Board CEO is supposed to be subservient to the Board, in this ‘Welcome to President,’ who sounds like the boss – the entrant or the, at that point, 13-year CEO?

Currently, in comparison to the ACOSS CEO, the ACOSS Board is weak, which is partly structural – for example, while ACOSS is ‘administered’ by a volunteer board, the CEO is well-salaried.

ACOSS CEO Remuneration

“Follow the money,” “always bet on the horse called, ‘Self-Interest’” and discern inconsistencies – i.e. why would the ACOSS CEO be 100% unconditionally committed to a ‘forever-war’ like ‘Raise the Rate,’ which, as well as being second-best for the Disempowered, permanently pits the Left against both most of the Right and the government of the day (it deteriorates their budget)?

With government providing a third of ACOSS’ budget (in 2023, as per its Annual Information Statement 2023, $1,286,139 out of $3,825,021), the CEO’s salary should be on the record.

In any case, given total ‘employee expenses’ are $2,841,818 and the number of ‘full-time equivalent staff’ is 17.91, this means the average employee expense is 2841818/17.91 = $158,672. 

So, perhaps, the CEO is on $300,000+?  [or, $400,000+ …]

Approaching 15 years, that’s $4.5+ mill.

While that’s not begrudged – i.e. if she solved ‘infrastructural-Disempowerment,’ she would be worth $1 million a year for the rest of her, even in retirement, life – from her point of view, it’s likely perceived as an amount worth protecting. 

Of course, to keep this job, which is overwhelmingly political, short of doing something useful, she must keep her powerful-alliances – particularly, that with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Secretary.

The ACOSS CEO’s Alliance with the ACTU Secretary

The ACOSS leadership’s alliances with mates shouldn’t overshadow their loyalty to the Disempowered.

The ACOSS CEO not only seeks alliance with the ACTU Secretary but, in so doing, seems to be self-subservient to her such that ACOSS’ policies follow the ACTU’s policies – i.e. there’s no objective in-principle reason for ACOSS’ policies to conform with the ACTU’s.

First, while the ACOSS and ACTU’s respective constituencies overlap, whereas the former’s is exclusively the Disempowered (both employed and unemployed), the latter’s consists of:

1. Employed-Disempowered – i.e. mostly low-wage earners [the overlap]
2. Empowered blue-collar paid-workers
3. Empowered professionals such as educators, health-workers, pilots etc.

And, many within these 3 groups regard ‘dole-bludgers’ (a core portion of ACOSS’ constituency) with disdain and, while most of the elite may be oblivious, Disempowered paid-workers are particularly contemptuous of the unemployed because, given the current income-Welfare (targeted) system, they miss out, which is, therefore, another reason to change the system.

Hence, the income-Welfare system not only infrastructurally divides the nation, with its epicentre amid the Disempowered, it also ‘divides and conquers’ the Disempowered, which increases Disempowerment.

Meanwhile, ACOSS’ constant ‘Raise the Rate’ heckling insidiously reinforces and magnifies this division and the unemployeds’ unnecessary suffering.

Second, regarding the ACTU Secretary, while worthy of a separate analysis, she seems to regard Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) as sacrosanct such that trading it in for something (i.e. The USI) that’s much better for those she represents is, somehow, still wrong.

Why this is so appears to be due to the Luddite-akin foolishness of prioritising ‘hard fought; hard won’ – i.e. because of the blood, sweat and tears expended up to 1907 to get the UMHoW ‘Harvester Judgement,’ therefore, ‘the buggy can never be traded-in for a car.’

Of course, as with the ACOSS CEO, her skills are political; definitely not economic.

So, with an economic equivalent of Hardy following Laurel, we have ‘Raise the Rate’ – should the ACOSS CEO be terminated from her present position, she may wish to apply to become the ACTU Secretary’s EA.

Consider this, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ has considerable both business & trade-union interest yet both the ACOSS CEO and ACTU Secretary are obstacles of even discussing it.

And, with the press, to this point, M.I.A. – i.e. focused on fluffy pseudo-intellectual entertainment including outrage over the peripheral – for 6 years and counting, these 2 have been ‘successful.’

The press, rather than treating them with kid gloves, could scrutinise such as by questioning, “Given the Cost-of-Living Crisis, shouldn’t ACOSS/ACTU take some responsibility for a failed strategy?” and “Could ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ be the solution?”

[Any scrutiny of ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ generates evidence for it!]

Another potential reason for the ACOSS CEO & Board’s anti-Coopetivity is even darker.

With Social-Infrastructure Optimised, ACOSS’ Relevance Will Diminish

If ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ is implemented, social-infrastructure will all-but-be optimised and infrastructural-Disempowerment eradicated, which means residual Disempowerment will be, say, just 10% of its current level.

Thus, ACOSS’s relevance will substantially diminish – i.e. the status quo of massive growing Disempowerment maximises ACOSS’ profile.

Accordingly, the CEO position will lose its prominence and, possibly, it’s high salary.

Are we saying the ACOSS CEO has this in mind?

No – while there’s evidence the Disempowered aren’t her top priority, we don’t see any evidence she has this degree of perceptivity; nevertheless, who knows?

A further potential reason for the ACOSS CEO & Board’s anti-Coopetivity is that none of you – the ACOSS members – are insisting they focus on solving infrastructural-Disempowerment.

ACOSS Members Incentivisation

The social-services industry should be attempting to, as much as possible, put itself out of business – i.e. it should be attempting to eradicate infrastructural-Disempowerment.

ACOSS members may address Disempowerment in 2 ways:

1. Manually – i.e. help those whose paths they cross
2. Systemically/infrastructurally – i.e. (particularly peak-bodies) advocate for infrastructural improvement.

With Disempowerment consisting of both the non-infrastructural and the infrastructural, while the former must be manually addressed, the latter should be infrastructurally addressed so it’s pre-empted – i.e. manually addressing infrastructural-Disempowerment is Band-Aiding.

Currently, due to the absence of ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform,’ perhaps 90% of the social-services industry’s endeavours are Band-Aiding, which leaves gaps and is wasteful.

Hence, your industry, already a Goliath – i.e. it’s about 10/11% of the Australian economy, which doesn’t include, according to Volunteer Australia, your 5.897 million volunteers – is getting bigger and bigger and, overall, achieving less and less as the number of Disempowered and the depth of Disempowerment grows and grows.

While with ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform,’ your industry will shrink, even for you personally, this will be overwhelmingly positive – i.e. if it means you personally need to transition to other paid-work, with no unemployment and vastly greater national prosperity, you will be far better-off than currently.

Thus, shouldn’t you encourage and expect ACOSS to be laser-focused on eradicating infrastructural-Disempowerment?

Conclusion

In Australia, the greatest obstacle to ending infrastructural-Disempowerment is the one most responsible for strategically championing the Disempowered – i.e. ACOSS.

While infrastructural-Disempowerment should be zero, in Australia, perhaps 90% of Disempowerment is infrastructural, which is suboptimal for both the Disempowered and the nation.

The solution is ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform.’

The best advocate for this is a focused Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS); however, the current CEO (who dominates its strategy and already constitutes a 6-year obstacle to the Reform’s debate) is unfit for this purpose including because she’s economically-illiterate, chooses policy alliances with other economic-illiterates, is committed to advocating for the ‘Raise the Rate’ Band-Aid and is a habitual demonstrator of anti-Coopetivity.

Yet, with a weak Board-structure, it’s only the members who can rectify this.

Thus, for the sake of the Disempowered & Australia per se, the CDO calls on ACOSS members to advocate for:

1. A new CEO
2. A stronger, more independent and more economically qualified Board
3. An urgent investigation into ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ such that an official position, either way, is established by the end of January, 2025 in preparation for that year’s Australian Federal election.

Thank you.

Best regards

Paul Ross

Founder & CEO

Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)

Correspondence Appendix (chronological)

[1] Subject: Opportunity to Address the CDO-Confidants on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’

September 14, 2024

To:      Dr Cassandra Goldie, CEO, Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)

CC:      CDO-Confidants

[A 90% Australian multi-domain multi-partisan 11,000-strong group spanning academia, the arts, business, education, emergency services, the environment, health, law, media, the military, philanthropy, other public-services, religion, social-services, sport, think-tanks, trade-unions and, regarding politicians (Left-to-Right/conservative-to-progressive), over 85% of Australia’s Federal, State & Council representatives.]

Dear Dr Goldie

I hope you are well.

With ACOSS widely regarded as Australia’s premier peak-body for advocating Disempowerment-emancipating-policy, in this sphere, we regard the ACOSS CEO’s voice as the most important.

Thus, this is an invitation to address the Citizen Dividend Organisation (CDO) Confidants on the topic of ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.

Given the level of your exposure to this reform over the last 6 years (during which potential productivity due to Science & Technology innovation has probably doubled yet the Disempowered are no better-off), we imagine you are aware this reform involves substituting The Universal Subsistence Income (USI) for:

1.     Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW)

2.     Income-Welfare [notwithstanding top-ups for the aged & disabled].

First, from our observations, ACOSS appears to be wedded to the current means-testing income-Welfare approach, which, uncorrelated with universalism, seems to be an outlier compared to our other major social infrastructures of:

1.     Universal Rule of Law

2.     Universal Liberal Democracy

3.     Universal Education

4.     Universal Healthcare.

We note the reasons for these 4 being universal include fairness and efficiency.

Thus, in the case of income-benefits, we wonder if ACOSS has an in principle reason for preferring means-testing or if it’s just a legacy issue, which is yet to be addressed because it hasn’t yet been prioritised?

Regarding ACOSS’ ‘Raise the Rate’ campaign, one problem seems to be that even when it’s successful, pressure from governments (due to it deteriorating their budget) and business (due to the raising of taxes and increased distortion to the labour market (though the increase to Aggregate Demand, which is less than The USI, is often welcomed)) means there’s a ‘forever war’ to pull the rate back down and/or increase harassment so there are less receiving it.

Second, we note your aim in the email above, which you summarise as:

Regarding ACOSS needing funds for this purpose, if a majority of both the Left & the Right agreed on a policy that will achieve all that (and more), with this ‘forever war’ concluded, there would be the added benefit that donations could be used for other purposes.

Third, unlike ‘Raise the Rate,’ ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ is ‘nation-contributive self-actualisation’ infrastructure that eradicates Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) & unemployment.

Specifically, the benefits to the Disempowered include:

1.     Poverty elimination

2.     Zero harassment (i.e. no means-testing means no harassment)

3.     Eradication of the ‘dole-bludger narrative’ (i.e. everyone receives it), which is causing mental-illness and catalysing racism, sexism, disablism and ageism

4.     With zero-unemployment, which results from UMHoW eradication, all can obtain paid-work even if their labour’s market-worth is below UMHoW (currently $24.10 per hour) [Also, currently, hundreds of thousands earn $0.00 per hour as volunteers and, without UMHoW, many of them will be able to earn something for their labour.]

5.     Removal of the obtain-paid-work-lose-income-Welfare trap/distortion

6.     Decreased household pressure, which means everything from better education outcomes for children, less escapism and far less crime (including far less domestic violence), which also means far less incarceration of the Disempowered.

Considering the case of a person in full-time UMHoW-earning paid-work, they continue receiving their salary plus they receive The USI as does their partner and adult children, which means they will be markedly better-off.

Regarding housing for the able, while everyone needs a safe roof over their head, they don’t need to be given a house – for example, especially in the case of a single person, they may decide to move elsewhere looking for a particular type of paid-work and may ‘crash’ on a friend’s couch for a while in which case they can contribute say $150 a week from their USI while they sort matters out.  Nevertheless, the USI (and zero-unemployment) will certainly assist those wishing to purchase a house.

Regarding self-determination and justice for, particularly, some outback (and city) First Nations’ people, with The USI and no unemployment they will be individually empowered beyond anything they can hope for under the current system (prediction: First Nations’ incarceration rates will plummet).

Regarding Climate Change, this ‘national-contributive self-actualisation’ infrastructure plus an efficient economy (currently, as per Coopetism 5.2 & 5.5, it’s, at least, 90% inefficient) will ‘clear the decks’ on this problem.

Regarding a fairer economy and tax system, by first delivering a fairer and more aspirational society, these 2 automatically follow – i.e. employee-exploitation is all but eradicated because people can:

1.     Subsist without paid-work

2.     Due to zero-unemployment, can obtain other paid-work.

Overall, what can be fairer (and more aspirationally catalysing) than a guaranteed Subsistence Income (free of ostracism and harassment) combined with the invigorating guaranteed opportunity to add to it via paid-work?

Also, with society stabilised and infrastructural Disempowerment eradicated, the potential for tax reform is unlimited – i.e. society becomes unified because all are empowered, which means there will be a critical mass of those prioritising what’s best for society including optimal tax reform.

Meanwhile, the government budget rockets into surplus as revenue climbs (via business expansion) and outlays plunge – i.e. there’s across-the-board pressure relief from better health, decreased bureaucracy, no need for public-service jobs-for-jobs’-sake paid-work, miniscule crime etc.

[Also, as per Coopetism 5.5, the amount taxpayers pay above receiving The USI (i.e. the ‘net-taxpayer-USI’) will likely be less than current income-Welfare expenditure and, in any case, the GDP-to-USI ratio will ascend from its current level of just 5 to perhaps 50 – i.e. increased economic-efficiency is not only better for society per se, it also assists business to prosper, which enables the financing of government services.]

Lastly, the reform solves the Cost-of-Living Crisis and, because there is no unemployment, the government no longer has to artificially stimulate the economy and the RBA only needs to focus on inflation.

In sum, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ is self-capitalising, incentivising and Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) & unemployment eradicating.

Dr. Goldie, we believe your voice and leadership – as the most pivotal in this policy sphere – cannot be ignored, which means you (and ACOSS) have the power to launch this reform, which perhaps also means you have the power to prevent it.

For the sake of our nation (particularly the Disempowered), we will welcome receiving your reply pertaining to your thoughts on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform.’

Thank you.

Best regards

Paul Ross

Founder & CEO

Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)

…

[2] Subject: Opportunity to Address the CDO-Confidants on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’

To:      Dr Goldie        ACOSS CEO

October 9, 2024

Dear Cassandra

This is to follow up the following.

There’s widespread interest in your thoughts on this important issue.

Let me know if you wish to have a chat.

Thank you.

Best regards

Paul

…

[3] Subject: ACOSS Board’s Opportunity to Address the CDO-Confidants on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’

To:      Hang Vo                                  ACOSS Board President & CDO-Confidant

CC:     Violet Roumeliotis AO           ACOSS Board Vice-President & CDO-Confidant

Matt Gardiner                         ACOSS Board Treasurer & CDO-Confidant

Dr David Panter                      ACOSS Board

Jana Favero                            ACOSS Board & CDO-Confidant

Vicki Sutton                           ACOSS Board & CDO-Confidant

Chloe Polglaze                       ACOSS Board (CDO-Confidant pending)

            Dr Cassandra Goldie              ACOSS CEO

            CDO-Confidants

• [A 90% Australian multi-domain multi-partisan 11,000-strong group spanning academia, the arts, business, education, emergency services, the environment, health, law, media, the military, philanthropy, other public-services, religion, social-services, sport, think-tanks, trade-unions and, regarding politicians (Left-to-Right/conservative-to-progressive), over 85% of Australia’s Federal, State & Council representatives.  And, regarding specifically ACOSS members – i.e. its State and Territory Councils of Social Service, National Constituency, National Members & Associates – most are represented.]

 …

October 16, 2024

Given the social-services-industry is the Disempowereds’ champion, if social-services’ leaders (perhaps because they’re too politically, socially and/or lifestyle comfortable with the status-quo or just intellectually lazy) refuse to debate (i.e. a ‘mentioning of ideas’ then a ‘battle of ideas’) ways of ameliorating ‘citizen-Disempowerment,’ isn’t that a most despicable betrayal?

Dear Ms Vo

I hope you are well.

I refer to the letter below sent to the ACOSS CEO on September 14, 2024 titled, ‘Opportunity to Address the CDO-Confidants on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’’ and the follow-up on October 9, 2024.

First, we note ACOSS is a public good and one of Australia’s most important institutions, which ‘aims to reduce poverty and inequality’ and ‘acts as an independent non-party political voice’ ‘drawing on the direct experiences of people affected by poverty and inequality’ to ‘work at the national level, to influence changes to federal policies and laws’ plus ‘we are dynamic, determined and strategic.’

Second, we note the CDO & ACOSS should be on the same side if not directly collaborating – i.e. we share the commonality of wishing to assist the Disempowered, which includes strengthening our nation because, when the nation’s weak, the Disempowered suffer most.

Third, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ is the most significant potential reform ACOSS (and Australia) has faced since Medicare in the 1980’s – i.e. it promises the eradication of our last remaining Disempowering-(anti-)infrastructure such that Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), poverty, unemployment & employee-exploitation are all, infrastructurally, eradicated yet, including via unleashing business, it’s self-funding, which means there will be more resources for the miniscule remaining problems.

Also, noting ‘The Indigenous Voice to Parliament’ referendum’s recent 1^st anniversary, it will, singlehandedly, infrastructurally, ‘Close the Gap’ because it encompasses choice, hope and self-determination at the individual level for all citizens, which means it cannot become a source of racism.

So, in a sea of cluelessness, we have a hypothesised overarching solution whose only weakness is, perhaps, it seems too blissful to be believed.

Accordingly, surely it’s worth discussing?  And, if ACOSS isn’t an appropriate place for this discussion to start then it’s obligated, under the ‘no wrong door’ principle, to indicate where is.

Some further arguments for the Reform:

Regarding ridicule of The Universal Subsistence Income (USI) as ‘something for nothing’ or the insistence there be ‘mutual obligations’ (other than being a law-abiding in-country citizen), all inheritance is ‘something for nothing’ and we inherit almost everything (including our lives, our genetics, our planet, our societal-institutions, our science & technology, our customs & culture and our upbringing); in the case of The USI, it’s an ancestral inheritance from the potential subsistence-transcendent event known as, ‘The Industrial Revolution’.

Regarding Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW), it creates unemployment – imagine the rolling indirect benefits of perpetual zero unemployment.

Regarding income-Welfare, because it’s targeted, it’s an infrastructural societal-division, which catalyses snobbery and harassment – i.e.:

1.     The means-testing & ‘mutual-obligations’ result in some citizens (usually the most vulnerable) being erroneously pushed-off into the gaps plus it creates the preconditions for schemes like ‘Robodebt’

2.     ‘The dole-bludger’-narrative, which, as well as demeaning ‘dole-bludgers’, is a precedent and nurturer of every other type of snobbery – i.e. racism, disablism, sexism, ageism etc.

Thus, with all this manufacturing the costly societal problems of excess-bureaucracy, mental-illness and criminality, like a horse & buggy that are both worn-out, UMHoW & income-Welfare should be traded-in for the superior USI.

Furthermore, it ends the Left/Right ‘forever-war’ over divisive side-issues such as the ‘Raise the Rate’ – i.e. with Left & Right both receiving most of what they want (and more than what they’re receiving or have any prospect of receiving), with the requisite will, they can work together to swiftly (i.e. the next federal election should result in a mandate) for its multi-partisan implementation.

Meanwhile, over the last 14 years, which corresponds to the ACOSS CEO’s tenure, though our potential-prosperity has quadrupled (via Science & Technology innovation), the percentage of Disempowered has increased. 

And, with ACOSS Australia’s premier social-services peak-body, obviously it would be juvenile for it not to accept a share of complicity in this failure – it is obvious, isn’t it?

In turn, this should motivate a humility to new ideas.

Yet, there’s been no acknowledgement of the failure, no observable humility (including 6 years of being an obstacle to even discussing ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’) and no discernible intellectual vigour; just business-as-usual fiddling and a stubborn anti-Coopetive avoidance of transparency & accountability, which includes no reply to the CDO’s recent letters, let alone, an addressing of their contents.

The latter is disappointing because:

1.     It’s a slap in the face for the CDO-Confidants, which also includes many ACOSS staff, board and members

2.     On numerous levels, it’s against the national/global interest including respect for Democracy’s ‘mentioning/battle of ideas’

3.     It’s a betrayal of ACOSS’ mandate and core stakeholders – i.e. the Disempowered.

[Perhaps, the ACOSS CEO is, overall, a tremendous people-manager and tactician who, on strategy, however, just doesn’t possess the analytical/economics wherewithal (i.e. background and understanding) to lead.]

To the naïve – and none of the Board (or the CEO) are naïve – all this may seem harsh; however, as you understand, urgency is required.

To take one scenario, due to the combination of a Subsistence-Income absence and, say, domestic violence, one person spending just a few hours homeless (how many are homeless each night?), can result in unrecoverable damage.

Also, in general, for a domestic violence victim who has reached the point of wanting to leave, is there anything they would wish for more than an existing guaranteed mobile income?  [Note: except in special circumstances, The USI can’t be paid into joint accounts.]

Nevertheless, taking a step-back, on reflection, given Boards are usually responsible for strategy and the ACOSS CEO isn’t on the Board [is the absence of an Executive Director a structural weakness?], perhaps the letter was missent; however, if so, this could have been advised.

In any case, we now make the same request of the Board as we did of the CEO (as per the September 14, 2024 letter) – i.e. we offer the board an opportunity to address the CDO-Confidants on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.’

To the Board, the point of this is not to trap you or cause you a problem but as an opportunity to improve our society particularly relating to the Disempowered.

Accordingly, if the Board perceives weaknesses in the Reform and/or has overriding objections to it and/or questions about it then fine, let’s hear it.

On the other hand, if the Board has no argument against it then perhaps it’s time to begin arguing for it? 

The remainder of this letter addresses each of the Board members’ professional backgrounds (as stated on the ACOSS website) and how ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ will assist.

To all Board members, if there was no Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), poverty, unemployment or employee-exploitation amongst citizens, how would it affect your organisation and those it seeks to assist?

Ms Vo, with your experience in ‘for-purpose organisations’ – which create value not just for their stakeholders, but also society-at-large – ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ is optimal because it’s both self-funding, which means governments gain budget respite, and business-unleashing (including via tax decreases).

Also, as a former refugee, member of the LGBITQ+ community and CEO of Sacred Heart Mission, which addresses social exclusion and homelessness, your ‘first-hand experience of dislocation and exclusion which drives [a] deep commitment to creating a more just, inclusive, and equitable society’ is addressed by the Reform because it infrastructuralises justice, inclusion and equality.

Regarding homelessness, while the Reform doesn’t directly address this, indirectly it certainly does – i.e. with a guaranteed income plus no unemployment, not only does it add a floor and deliver ‘The Agency of Choice,’ it clears the decks on our economy’s waste (about 90%), which, in turn, means there’s far more resources and impetus for that which we really want/need such as housing.

Regarding refugees, while The USI is for citizens, with all Australians taken care of and the economy multiples more productive, the goodwill, focus and resources devoted to this sphere will skyrocket.

Plus, in global terms, the Model’s demonstrated success will provide a template for other nations to use, which means the sources of refugees will decrease.

Ms Roumeliotis, as CEO of Settlement Services International and ‘a social entrepreneur who champions the strengths of our diverse communities and is committed to take a leadership and pioneering role to elevate reconciliation … uses innovation and collective impact to promote social justice and inclusion,’ while much of this has already been covered, the Reform innovatively ‘Closes the Gap,’  promotes justice, equity, advancing diversity and inclusion plus ‘supports newcomers and other vulnerable individuals to achieve their full potential’.

Mr Gardiner, regarding ‘the areas of child protection, family therapy, relationship counselling, mediation, sexual assault and violence prevention,’ the Reform is a whole-of-society stress-ameliorator, which will create a fundamentally better paradigm impacting all these aspects.

We also note (and the Reform aligns with) your passion for ‘improving systems.’

Dr Panter, given your training as a psychologist, you will understand better than most the Reform’s benefit to mental-health – i.e. no Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), no poverty, no unemployment, no employee-exploitation are only the beginning because there’s also the eradication of infrastructural-division and its deliverance of choice, control, hope and prosperity.

Also, noting your work ‘in the UK … National Health Service across hospital, community and primary care services and more latterly in local government [including as] CEO of a … Council’ before helping lead reforms in the South Australian public health system and aged-care sector, with Australia’s public health system becoming overwhelmed, the Reform will lower demand including through, as mentioned, eliminating or fractionalising most mental-illness precursors.

Regarding your commitment to ‘human rights and ensuring that services respond to the diversity of Australian communities,’ apart from safety against attack, what is a greater human-right than a guaranteed Subsistence-Income?

Regarding your current leadership role at Minda – South Australia’s largest provider of services to those with an intellectual disability – and to Ms Polglaze (as a disabled graduate civil engineer and Director of Children and Young People with Disability Australia), the Reform will revolutionise the disabled’s lives – i.e.

1.     Their loved-one carers will automatically receive The USI

2.     With zero unemployment and no UMHoW, instead of most only finding work as volunteers or with job-subsidisation, most who wish to fully participate in the paid-workforce will, on their own merits, be able to do so

3.     Disability claims will only be for that amount above The USI, which means claiming will be less onerous

4.     In full-recognition of their humanness and citizenship, as with everyone else, they receive The USI.

Ms Polglaze, being ‘passionate about universal design, disability justice and social justice,’ the Reform’s universality is a key strength, which stands as a metaphorical promoter of universalism per se including universal access to society’s physical facilities.

[Also, as a young leader, we note it is often the young that are the first to grasp a new idea’s power.]

Ms Favero, noting you’re an influential speaker/advocate on human rights and refugee/asylum policy with the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) who has broad global experience including in the UK private sector and assisting women in Mongolia and India and you’re ‘committed to advocating for the fair, equal and respectful treatment of everyone in Australia,’ the CDO wishes to plagiarise your ‘basic belief that collaborative effort is needed to end discrimination and disadvantage’ – i.e. the Reform is a potential Left & Right collaboration for a universal outcome, which is also universally beneficial and globally adaptable.

Ms Sutton, as CEO of Melbourne City Mission, ‘which works across homelessness, disability, education, early years and palliative care’ and being personally ‘committed to reducing poverty and inequality in Victoria through both direct service delivery and strong and effective advocacy for systems change [and being] passionate about the role of innovation to create new, better solutions to complex problems,’ once again, the Reform positively reaches into every aspect mentioned here including being a ‘better solution’ system-innovation.

In terms of ‘education’ and ‘early years,’ the Reform maximises the possibility of a stable joyful childhood because it takes the base financial pressure off parents and gives them choice over matters including how much time they spend with their children and whether they use part of The USI to pay for childcare.

In general, the Reform frees up loved-ones including carers, which will also positively impact on ‘palliative care.’

In conclusion, Australia needs a strong cognizant strategic Left/Right-unifying ACOSS that acts as a ‘high road’ national leader.

And, to this end, a possible Board 3-point plan is:

1.       The Board reconfirm its, in principle, control of strategy then urgently redetermine what ACOSS’ strategy should be

2.       Determine a position on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ with a deadline of this year’s end so the position can be announced some months prior to next year’s Federal Election [while the CDO doesn’t normally advocate forming committees, in this case, perhaps a month-long one is appropriate]

3.       Given your current understanding, reply to this email, which, among other things, will catalyse the CDO-Confidants’ goodwill toward ACOSS, which, in turn, will maximise their willingness to lend their expertise, advocacy and other support.

Thank you.

Best regards

Paul Ross

Founder & CEO

Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)

…

[4] Subject: ACOSS Board’s Opportunity to Address the CDO-Confidants on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’

To: Hang Vo   ACOSS President

November 4, 2024

Dear Ms Vo

I hope you are well.

This letter references the letter below dated October 16, 2024 to yourself on behalf of the ACOSS Board.

While we understand liaising and formulating responses may take time, having not yet received an interim reply, we wonder if there is any forthcoming?

Certainly, any reply will be well-received.

Thank you.

Best regards

Paul Ross

Founder & CEO

The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)

…

[5] Subject: ACOSS Board’s Opportunity to Address the CDO-Confidants on ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’

To:       ACOSS Board members

            Hang Vo                                  President

Violet Roumeliotis AO           Vice-President

Matt Gardiner                         Treasurer

Dr David Panter                     

Jana Favero                            

Vicki Sutton                           

Chloe Polglaze                      

November 8, 2024

Dear ACOSS Board Member

Regarding correspondence pertaining to ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform,’ which was copied to the CDO-Confidants, and a follow-up to the President (Ms Vo) on November 4 (below), this confirms no reply has been received from the ACOSS Board and, accordingly, we are further following-up by writing to each of you individually.

To recap, The CDO’s hypothesis is:

The Disempowered have a core problem – i.e. infrastructural Disempowerment – which is eradicated via ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform,’

where USI is ‘Universal Subsistence Income’ & UMHoW is ‘Universal Minimum Hourly Wages.’

In short, ‘The Reform’ eradicates Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), poverty, unemployment and, therefore, employee-exploitation yet is both nation-uniting (including eliminating Subsistence-Income-based harassment and ostracization) and self-funding, which means there’s far more resources available, for instance, for refugees.  [Regarding refugees, there’s also far more goodwill including due to zero unemployment, which means, rather than being feared for ‘taking’ jobs, they will be welcomed as contributors in the paid-workforce.]

Hence, ‘The Reform’ is all but a silver-bullet for every social-problem under the sun including mental-illness, domestic-violence, ‘Closing the Gap,’ empowering the disabled and, unlike the flawed & narrow ‘Raise the Rate,’ has the potential for across-the-board (i.e. Left & Right) support.

So, why aren’t all those associated with ACOSS – Australia’s peak-body champion for the Disempowered – over-the-moon with excitement at the prospect of this ‘Reform’?

Why, on the contrary, is there disinterest in engaging on the idea and, seemingly, even a desire to bury it?

If the proposal is somehow wrong then why not (ideally, with reasoning) say so?

Imagine, down the track, looking back and seeing yourself complicit in prolonging the Disempowereds’ unnecessary-suffering.  For the CDO’s part, it can’t conscionably (and will not) step back.

Regarding, in principle, whether to reply to the CDO’s correspondence, not only is there tremendous interest in your response, the credibility of the ACOSS organisation, you personally and, by extension, the respective organisations you represent is being measured.

So, if you’re concerned you don’t understand ‘The Reform’ or, for some reason, feel uncomfortable or fearful, even a minimal reply such as, “You raise some compelling points, which we need time to consider, and, in the meantime, we welcome debate on ‘The Reform’.” would be a courteous civil response, which would be well-received. 

Otherwise, if the Board of Australia’s peak social-services body can’t even gather the simplest of replies, putting betrayal of the Disempowered aside, it’s embarrassing, including internationally.

If you can’t agree (or even if you can), you’re welcome to reply as an individual and if you want it to remain private just state that and it will be well-received and respected.

Similarly, if you wish to have an off-the-record chat, please let me know.

Lastly, given this is a crucial historically pivotal issue, what you decide now will have future personal implications and, though most of you are in the second-half of your lives & careers, I particularly feel for Ms Polglaze.

As mentioned, any reply will be well-received – if you want it to remain private, state that and it will be honoured.

Thank you.

Best regards

Paul Ross

Founder & CEO

The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)