it is not just the ethical questions but also the practical. When this is rolled out across the country I will be one person subject to the policy. However what the policy fails to take into account is the fact that my private landlord will not register for the basics card and therefore i will be unable to cover the cost of my rent from that basics card but will have to pay it from the 'discretionary' cash that is paid into my bank account. Much of what i do now to make ends meet in buying from local farmers and market stalls will be closed off from me because the basics card is designed with big business in mind. No doubt i will be forced to make the 100km round trip to a supermarket where the prices are higher and the produce of lower quality and how am i expected to cover the cost of the travel? Additionally the basics card is not designed to cover the cost of seeds and other gardening essentials used for growing your own food and because i will be trying to cover such costs as rent, increased fuel costs to get to the supermarket etc etc i will be unable to cover the cost of essentials for growing what vegetables i do now. This is a mad scheme that is designed for the benefit of big business and fails to take into account that many people are doing a very clever juggling act in order to eek out the meagre amount of money available.

Tired

Hi Andrew,
Thanks for posting your opinion about this discriminatory policy.

Simply by residing in a low socioeconomic area and being on the Disability Pension, I am a likely target for Welfare Quarantining. Add my wheelchair to the equation and I am already marginalised and socially excluded in myriad ways.

With even Government departments minimising employment of the "disabled" I have little or no chance of locating a private enterprise position. Consequently I am totally reliant on Centrelink payments. I am attending TAFE in an effort to re-train but even then a job is still unlikely.

But there's more!

I am a solo parent of a disabled child. He has required 2 operations, medical assessments, specialists etc prior to and after starting school. A new school next year for Year 8 means massive uniform and fees and don't get me started on compulsory school camp costs!

The non-residential parent (I am avoiding gender because that sparks the wrong debate) has paid nothing towards this financial debt
bar one $25.00 contribution, and is consistently avoiding Child Support.

I used to earn over a $1000.00 a week clear before becoming disabled and now I struggle from week to week just to pay basic bills. My budget is always out of whack because I cannot rely on CS.

Why should I be Income Quarantined because of which suburb I live in or because the other parent won't support our child?

Thank-you for drawing attention to this odious plan. And thank-you to my previous posters who will fall victim to it. I have every sympathy for how you feel.

Macklin will succeed of course. You will see why when further posts come in.

It is a popular blood sport to attack those who receive a Government payment, as beholden to the rest of society,- who feel they have the right to 'keep these people in check'.

It will be the public support from those who are lucky-;yes lucky,- NOT to be in the position of being a 'welfare recipient',-who will get this vile plan through.

'They are a weak lot these welfare people..., not much clout;-so we will decide what is best for them/after all it's our money/they are rorting the system........etc, etbloodycetera.'

Your 'LABOR' Government will go ahead with this-being mightily slapped on the back by those who are so preoccupied with kicking the weakest, whilst they ignore the mega-rorts of the rich and powerful.

When/if the conservatives take power-they will endorse and enhance the scheme.

Not to worry folks-eventually such policies will affect you too. It is an inevitability of such pernicious political acts.

Great article. I couldn't agree more. As a mental health nurse I have seen how humiliating it is for patients who have been placed under the public trustee for the managing of their money. To have to go into a shop and ask for a written quote to buy a pair of shoes. Present this to the trustee and get a check written which you ten take back to the shop. At least it is justified by being directed at only those who are "unable" to manage their money due to mental illness. Not those who simply make poor poor decisions out of choice. I fail to see how the benefits of such a regime can outweigh the loss of freedom and terrible impact on personal dignity.

Andrew - I don't object to the article but for those not in the field it would be helped greatly by a couple more paragraphs near the top explaining what income quanranting is and how widespread it is.. Place the issue in context.. It is possible to guess what you are talking about from the rest of the article, I admit, but that concession to outsiders would make your article considerably more useful..

Unfortunately, I think the ethics were guided by politics in this case.

The ethics in the case of indigeneous populations are straightforward: poor life expectancy, negligible education, alomst complete unemployemeny... the list goes on.

However, instead of admitting that remote indigeneous communities are an exceptional case where social norms have broken down and have forced the government to take drastic action, the government wants to pretend that they are no different from the rest of the community and apply the rules to all sections of the community.

This is pure politics. It is the government being too weak to stare down accusations of racism by urban political aboriginies and their hangers-on and apply the rules only to the section of the population who need it.

I feel very sorry for all those disabled people beging treated as irresponsibile and unable to manage their lives. This is the sort of convoluted outcome we get when second rate government meets second rate ethics.