Although saving would help to build financial resilience, many found the government's rules forced them not to. Claire, a 20-year-old Melbourne mother of two, won't save because the Centrelink liquid assets test might cut off her benefit. Her partner saves, while she uses all of her income to pay bills.
Working is also regarded as risky. Jo, a single mother, worked extra hours to try to buy a fridge. When she told Centrelink of her extra income in a periodical report she ended up with no extra money and lived without a fridge for a year.
The report finds many of the coping mechanisms forced on vulnerable Australians by a sudden loss of income and Centrelink rules increase vulnerability rather than help to build defences against it.
Warning: I have to rant. 
Apologies in advance and I will understand if you want to ignore this post ....
This is a bleeding heart survey, and although I am immensely supportive of the charity work done by the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, they do operate on the premises that everyone is a victim, everyone is genuinely in need, and that everyone is truthful, honest and good. That's just simply not true - and of course the participants are going to answer the survey in a manner that makes them look hard done by because they're so used to getting everything for nothing they honestly feel hard done by and chuck a tantrum if they can't have even more.
Centrelink benefits were never intended to be enough for people to be saving and setting themselves up comfortably on. They were always meant to be 'welfare' help - to allow people to have the basic necessessities of food, shelter etc if they were not able to work.
Australia is extremely lucky to have a welfare system that provides this ongoing direct financial assistance, along with additional benefits such as rent assistance, cheaper utility and vehicle registration bills, cheaper or free transport, cheaper entry to many entertainment events, charities such as the brotherhood and salvos assisting with clothing, furniture, blankets, food and many other things if they still can't cope (for example if they blow their welfare money on drugs, gambling or other things - they can turn up at these places, openly discuss what they blew their money on, be and be given sympathetic and practical assistance). They also get free counselling - financial, emotional and any other type required. And free legal assistance. And free medical, free or very cheap pharmaceutical, and free access to clean needles and methadone programs etc if they have drug problems. And free education programs - employment and retraining programs for them, and free funding and help with books, uniforms etc for any kids educational needs. Free University. etc etc etc etc etc
And there are other free government and non-government agencies, programs and organisations specifically available to help people- anyone - who can't read or write , can't speak English, have different cultures, can't get child maintenance from their ex-partner, have depression or other unspecified general mental illness or just overall sadness and want to talk, need someone to argue on their behalf to businesses or even other govt agencies ... etc etc etc etc etc.
The list of financial help and any other free 'help' services for people in Australia, and particularly for those on Government benefits/Centrelink just goes on and on. And the more that's given, the more people try to rort the system, and the more people whinge because they just want more and more.
Even the beggars and homeless in Australia are all getting ongoing benefits - unemployment or disability or some other one. And access to all the above. It puts them in a different perspective to beggars and homeless people in other countries that are less 'generous' with the public purse.
Regarding the examples in the article:
1/ Centrelink was never meant to be enough for people to have good savings and investments - it's only meant to be for day-to-day basic needs. However - the liquid assets test does allow for a reasonable amount of savings and investments before it begins to affect the pension/benefit, and then there is a proportional scale before it cuts the pension/benefit out altogether- the allowable levels are more than enough to allow for savings in relations to budgeting for future needs, and build up a reasonable level of 'financial resilience'.
If she's in a position to be able to pay all the bills with her taxpayer funded benefit while her partner is able put aside money for savings, then they're not doing too badly and she shouldn't be whining.
2/ Centrelink allows people to work, and there is a proportional scale - you can earn up to so much before it affects the benefit, then there is a decrease of so many cents in the dollar for each dollar earned, gradually increasing. So that if single mum Jo worked extra hours to buy a fridge, she would absolutely have extra money in her pocket at the end of the day and could get her fridge. Unless she's on a pretty reasonable ongoing full time wage, in which case she shouldn't be claiming benefits anyway. And as a single mum on benefits she wouldn't have had to live a year without a fridge - the brotherhood, or salvo's or other organisation would organise one for her, even if it was on some sort of a loan for a secondhand one. Or she could get a no-interest advance from Centrelink on her family allowance benefits (which is a fortnightly allowance just for having the kids, and wouldn't get cut off unless she was earning more than $80,000 or maybe even higher per year), and use that to buy a second-hand fridge.
3/If 'vulnerable Australians' don't want the Centrelink 'rules', then go move to a country that doesn't have benefits. Or don't bloody apply for Centrelink. We have a very low employment rate and jobs getting farmed out to overseas workers because they can't get 'locals' to fill the positions (and not just skilled jobs - some jobs that just need old-fashioned hard work).
Maybe the grizzlers in the survay should experience living in a country that doesn't provide them with so much constant and ongoing help, and then maybe they would - maybe- appreciate what a bloody good wicket they're on here in Australia.
The only really 'disadvantaged' group in Australia, just in the context of the survey, is the middle income bracket - the bracket that earns too much money to get most of the free benefits thrown at the low income and welfare groups, but not enough for it not to matter to them. They may be not much over the cut-off thresh-hold, but as soon as they're over, the extra free 'help' stops - so that they actually end up having to pay full price for everything, and don't have access to all the assistance and services etc, and ironically end up with less disposable income and a lower 'living ability' than the low income groups.
But they still have enough to provide all the basic necessities, because they're living in a very lucky environment compared to some other countries.
End of rant and thank you for suffering or ignoring it.... 
