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.

This income quarantining is a vicious assault on the dignity and freedom of the weakest and poorest people in society. That it is being perpetrated by a labor government makes me sick. What the hell are they thinking?
First off the blame goes to that racist throwback to the 1950s johnny coward who started this scheme supposedly to help little children but we all know it was just one more of his many dog whistles blown as a last, spiteful and shameful act in a desperate, and futile, attempt to hold onto his seat and the prime ministership. But a pox on labor for continuing with it despite numerous studies and groups calling for it to end. Despite it going against everything the labor party supposedly stands for.

The whole premise of the scheme is full of #%$@. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that says there is widespread misuse of benefit payments. The premise that children are suffering is not born out by the fat little porkers I see walking around. Introduce school breakfasts/lunches if you really care if kids get fed. A few more fruit shops and community gardens and a few less KFCs and McDonalds might be a good start. More money for active sports and parks and less on spying on their parents would make more sense.

What about working parents? Or is it only poor people who can waste their money and neglect their children? Is this the thin end of the wedge? First it is those on benefits but what makes you so sure you wont be next in their sights? Why wont they go after everyone else next? The precedent has been set. Remember the saying. "They came to take the Communists, but I said nothing, because I was not a Communist. They came to take the Catholics, but I said nothing, because I was a Protestant. And finally, They came to take me, but I said nothing, for I was guilty ... "

continued

continued

This scheme will humiliate and degrade people. Force them into certain shops and certain checkout lines. Brand them as no hopers who cant think for themselves and cant be trusted. Patronise and shame people who have no way to fight back. Where are all you right wing scum who bleat on about the "nanny state" now?

Why not go back to the old days and have soup kitchens? Rationbooks. The poorhouse. Work gangs. Shanty towns. Make people tramp the highways and byways looking for work. Bring back the swagman lifestyle. Rabbits are good food. Plenty of road bridges you can sleep under. Are we that barbaric and uncivilised? What's the difference?

Labor better rethink this vile and unfair scheme forthwith or they risk further stigmatising and marginalising people who neither deserve such punishment nor will cope with the restrictions and intrusion into their lives. Expect a rise in homelessness, crime and suicide if this scheme ever goes ahead. It was a bad policy to begin with, designed in malice and shamefully executed, and this new expansion will only build and worsen this evil and unnecessarily harmful attempt at social control.

You can rest easier, Tired & Weary, the income quarantining/management will not apply to either aged or disabled pensioners, no matter where they live.

It will apply to people on most other forms of welfare, but arrangements can be made to pay rent automatically direct from the quarantined amount to landlords if that is what the welfare recipient prefers

Ginxy... just out of curiosity..you slam labor and you seem to be not exactly waving the banner for the Coalition.. who 'do' you wave the banner for ? (any particular party?)

I loathe them all. That is not too strongly put,-I loathe them and see no difference between any of them.

It astonishes me that you folks continue to extol the virtues of one particular Party. The continual definition of Left/Right is ludicrous-as is the perception of any Left influence/damage.

Any halfwit can work out that global politics;-at least in the First World, has shifted to the Right.
Society has shifted to the Right! If there is even a snifter of support for worker rights by a specific group/s---(they are called Unions-some good-some bad-most all now on the Right),---there is a meltdown of a loony Left takeover! Some CRETINS have even referred to Socialists!!,- now the big boogie-man. Remember when it was Communists??

That philosophy of denigrating Socialists is a straight out shift to the Right.

I have the utmost respect for former politician Ted Mack, who could not stomach what was happening. And also for the late Peter Andren.

You've asked BOZO;-I've answered. I won't debate it with you or anyone else.

I have read the exposure draft of the "decision-making principles" which will determine what Centrelink social workers (CSWs) will have to take into account in deciding whether a person should be subject to income management. Dan F. is quite correct.

Further, the CSWs will have to consider both whether person is meeting their priority needs and those of their dependents, and whether income management will assist them in doing so.

Before income management is applied, a person will have to be suffering domestic or family violence, or be subject to undue pressure, harassment, abuse, deception or exploitation for resources, of to be failing to undertake reasonable self care, or be homeless or at risk of being homeless, or be experiencing such financial hardship that they cannot meet the priority needs of themselves or of their dependents.

That said, I am not a supporter of compulsory income management. It is highly paternalistic, and so inappropriate except in defence of children. (Perhaps it could be available on a voluntary basis for adults.) The list of priority needs is very wide. Though Centrelink has learned from the publicised cases where management has had absurd and harmful consequences, there is the likelihood of it doing more harm than good.

I ask, however, how else we are to deal with children who are not being properly cared for because money is extorted from their carers? Take the children away? Jail drunken or abusive relatives?

Author: "Most of us would be annoyed that the government had selectively restricted our freedom to spend our money as we please"

Well yes, that's exactly the point.

Who's money is it? Income management is managing the taxpayer's money, not the recepient's money. If they earned any money, they can spand it as they please. If they are'deserving poor' then they get money for the essentials... and that should come with strings attached... such as no spending on flat-screens or pokies.

I know a previous DOCS worker who resigned because she was driving around in a second-hand old rusty lorean car, visiting single mother baby factories who spent their kid's money on pokies, on grog, on a great big flat-screen. They had bag-fulls of money.

Well now PTP;-you took your time-I was expecting you long before now.

(I have to admit I was becoming impressed that there wasn't an all-fired rush to put up the kind of post that you have).

'Bag-fulls (bags full?) of money' eh? And your friend going around in a Lorean no less.(John DeL will be chuffed).

In one fell swoop you categorise an entire group of people in Australia. The whole lot! Pokies/grog/flatscreens/baby factories.

I gather a story on ACCER? tonight got you really fired up. Which is what they intended of course.

I reckon 'we' should make 'them' mark their clothes with a symbol;-say a circle with 'SM' in the centre......,hey!! we could even stamp their arms!!

God knows where I got that from

I agree with Ozbib.

Where neglected children are involved with parents who spend their welfare payments on grog, gambling and drugs instead of feeding and clothing their kids, then as far as I am concerned that negates their 'right' to spend their centrelink payments on what they like.

All deadbeat single Dads who give up work and go on welfare to avoid paying maintenance to their ex for the kids, should also be subject to income quarantine. (See Partimeparent, we can all generalize about a group of people like you do.)

Any adult, with no dependent children, on welfare payments who wants to drink or drug themselves to death or gamble themselves into debt should have the 'right' to do so, because unless they want to stop for themselves, nothing will help them.
If we quarantine their money, I can see the crime rates soaring.

Ginx! I could see this coming a mile way. Well your right! and I'll wait for more comment.

TTM

Where is all this outrage when we treat aboriginals in this dreadful way?

Houell: I was tipped of about this proposal late last year, and approached Senator X and the ABC early this year. The ABC knew nothing of the proposal, and 'are looking into it'. (early February).

The point you make is entirely valid. But for some perhaps-not me. I have always abhorred any policy of apartheid. And strongly objected to this control of our indigenous population. ( Were you aware that there are MANY photos of 'Henson type' 'art' of Aboriginal youngsters in galleries in Alice Springs? Whatever your stance,-the article I read questioned why there was no outcry about this. I agree).

Without question there is room for concern for errant abusive parents. I cannot argue otherwise.

What I strongly object to is the incessant 'one size fits all' solutions by Government/s. They always look for an 'easy way out'. This type of policy is more 'cost effective' for them,--(so that they have more taxpayer dosh to waste on their own projects)--and such policy also projects an image of fiscal responsibility to the overworked taxpayer...

It is nothing of the kind. It is the humiliation and debasement of very many Australians who simply do not deserve to be demeaned in this manner.

But of course, an easy and quite solution is necessary so that the Government/s can concentrate on not offending the Mine Co's or upsetting the big end of town.

We can't have that, now can we?

The set of principles for Centrelink employees are an attempt to avoid 'one size fits all', without at the same time making prejudiced assumptions about groups. They focus on those responsible for the care of children who are not making a fist of it; and though restrictions on spending can then be imposed, they are not automatic, and in any case have to be reviewed every year.

But they also focus on people who are not looking after themselves. Where this failure is the result of other people's abuse--where drunken husbands force their wives to hand over welfare money, for example, there is a real case for the protection of the victims. It would be good to find a better way of doing it. Any ideas?

However, if people choose not to look after themselves and their spending is restricted, we have paternalism. (Question: is this example realistic? Are gambling addicts choosing?)

@Suzieonline
<<Where neglected children are involved with parents who spend their welfare payments on grog, gambling and drugs instead of feeding and clothing their kids, then as far as I am concerned that negates their 'right' to spend their centrelink payments on what they like.>>

Bugger their "right" to spend they deserve to lose the "right" to have children altogether if they are abusing their children like that. The same goes for those who arent on benefits.
The focus on the few who do the wrong thing is just a smokescreen and designed to defame all welfare recipients as feckless, untrustworthy bogans ripping off the system rather than the reality that most are suffering BECAUSE of the system and this will just make it worse.

Mikk, given the certainty that we can't stop neglectful parents from breeding, how would you suggest we stop them spending welfare money on alcohol, drugs and gambling instead of caring for their kids?

In what way are welfare recipients who neglect their children '...suffering BECAUSE of the system" , and how will quarantining their money to only allow most of it to be used for food, clothing and essential bills make the situation any worse?

Surely if this income quarantining was only carried out if the welfare recipients were neglecting their children, and that these parents were also taught skills for managing their money on their own in the future, then that is a good thing?

<<Mikk, given the certainty that we can't stop neglectful parents from breeding, how would you suggest we stop them spending welfare money on alcohol, drugs and gambling instead of caring for their kids?>>

The same way we do to every other member of society. Organisations like DOCS are charged with child welfare not Centrelink.

<<In what way are welfare recipients who neglect their children '...suffering BECAUSE of the system" , and how will quarantining their money to only allow most of it to be used for food, clothing and essential bills make the situation any worse?>>

I didnt say it was the neglectful ones suffering I said it was all welfare recipients. The indignity, the humiliation, the shame and now the scorn, of people like you, and the paternalism and disrespect from the government. Not to mention the poverty, the "mutual obligation", the hatred from the media and the biased perception of the public.

<<Surely if this income quarantining was only carried out if the welfare recipients were neglecting their children, and that these parents were also taught skills for managing their money on their own in the future, then that is a good thing?>>

If the gov had said that it would only apply to proven child neglect, by some mechanism like DOCS for example, then I would likely agree with it. But that is not what they have said nor what they have done so far. It will apply to anyone who a Centrelink employee thinks needs/deserves it. The public humiliation of having to use the governments shame card is more than enough reason to object to it. This is 2010 not the dark ages.

Credit where credit is due.

Senator Rachel Siewert is to be thanked for her observations with respect to the about to be introduced quarantining of welfare payments, reported here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/7437710/new-income-quarantine-laws-pass-senate/ . She said:

"... I think [the government have] wanted to keep the
changes to the income support scheme, our social security
scheme, as quiet as possible. Because broader Australia
certainly doesn't understand that there are significant
changes being made to the social security legislation. ..."



She is dead right.



I can only echo OLO userID Curmudgeon's call to the article author for "a couple more paragraphs near the top explaining what income quarantining is and how widespread it is.", and to "Place the issue in context.". I guess it is too late to put the paragraphs 'at the top', but what about as many as four appropriately constructed 350 word posts in quick succession to this thread, as the author, correcting this deficiency?

This request should in no way be considered a criticism of the article as it stands. I thank the author for a 'heads up' on an issue the ramifications of which I had been utterly unaware, probably for exactly the reason given by Senator Siewert. (BTW, is she OLO userID 'Rache' by any chance, I wonder?)

The posting of a few authoritative links by the author or other posters would also be a big help to the wider debate there should be (have been?) on this issue.

So far, with the proviso that he is correctly informed, it seems OLO userID 'mikk' has nailed the essential repulsiveness of this proposal most succinctly with his observation:

"It will apply to anyone who a Centrelink employee thinks needs/deserves it."

Just watch the Centrelink workplace psychopaths and standover merchants worm their way into the welfare quarantining decision-making positions in that instrumentality. Welfare income quarantining will soon stink to high heaven as an extortioner's paradise.




Some possibly useful background information:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/new-law-to-quarantine-all-welfare-payments/story-e6frgczf-1225803474284

http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=3565

mikk, I agree with you absolutely on this issue. I would also add the way that children will also be embarrassed by having their parent paying for things with one of these cards. It's going to impair the way in which children regard and respect the parents who are already having difficulty maintaining their family. Diminishing them further in their own eyes and that of their children will do more harm than good.

I think too that we can't really grasp how terribly hard and for some impossible, to break free of drug and alcohol addiction. Many of those addicts are that way because they were subjected to child abuse and various types of trauma.

This sort of system will cost a lot to implement and administer. How much more useful it would be for more drug/alcohol live in rehab facilities to be available and for parents who have had their children removed because of neglect to be able to work towards recovering their families. The kids could even be taken for visitation to inspire residents to stick to the program and so that the kiddies can see that their parent is working at getting better - an example of someone worthy of their admiration.

I reckon that children who are neglected should be removed by DOCs and the parents given an opportunity to detox and be admitted to a suitable facility. As it is now, there are not enough of these sorts of rehab services about.

Mikk <"...The indignity, the humiliation, the shame and now the scorn, of people like you,..."
People like me? I have never said I have scorn for welfare recipients Mikk.
I have had the unfortunate job of picking up the pieces of neglected Aboriginal children's lives out in the community. Have you?

What about their 'rights' to live an abuse-free life Mikk?
As far as I am concerned, neglectful parents of any race forfeit their rights to manage their own money if they neglect their children.

I agree with Pynchme that these children should be removed from their neglectful parents.

However, because of people like you, bleating for everyone's 'rights', we have to leave these poor kids to their own fate, only to have them grow up, reproduce, and start the cycle all over again.

Posters dane and Dan Fitzpatrick with their respective comments:

"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."

and

"You can rest easier, Tired & Weary, the income quarantining
/management will not apply to either aged or disabled pensioners,
no matter where they live."

between them provide the perfect lead-in to further exposing where the blame lies for this pernicious policy. I'll amplify on the second quote first.

Section 51 placitum (xxiii) of the Constitution since Federation has provided that the Commonwealth Parliament has had the power to legislate with respect to invalid and old-age pensions. It is all the other sorts of welfare payments of the like provided for in the purported placitum (xxiiiA) inserted into the Constitution in 1946 to which income quarantining may capriciously and increasingly be applied.



The underlying problem is that that placitum (xxiiiA) shown as having been inserted in 1946 depended upon a referendum that in reality did not meet the requirements of Section 128 of the Constitution for passage. The referendum result was wrongly declared.



It seems the ALP has deceived itself for 64 years as to the validity of the amendment which purportedly empowered it to enact the legislation that has enabled the extent of welfare dependency that now exists to have come about.

It seems the Coalition parties over those same 64 years have continued so unaware or disdainful of the provisions of the Constitution that not one Parliamentary member thereof has blown the whistle as to the defective passage of placitum (xxiiiA) upon which all this now crippling welfare dependency grew.

Bipartisan joint guilty secret!

TBC

Continued

Poster ozbib has earlier in the thread stated:

"I have read the exposure draft of the "decision-making principles"
which will determine what Centrelink social workers (CSWs) will
have to take into account in deciding whether a person should be
subject to income management. Dan F[itzpatrick] is quite correct."

It would be really helpful to further discussion if ozbib could post a link to the exposure draft of the 'decision-making principles' to which reference has been made. Always presuming, that is, that they are publicly viewable online. I for one would particularly appreciate some feedback from ozbib as to either the relative availability, or un-availability, of this exposure draft to the public. The very fact that it is described as an 'exposure' draft implies that input as to finalising those decision-making principles is sought from somewhere. Not from the general public, I don't suppose?

I wonder whether that exposure draft could be obtained under FOI?

Just as a matter of interest, there is a current OLO discussion on Adam Henry's article 'Freedom of information needs to be taken seriously', viewable here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10578&page=0 . Might be worth a look, as it may be considered by some to be tangential to this discussion.

While we are seeking clarifications, I thought I would post the content of the purported placitum (xxiiiA) to Section 51 of the Constitution (a Section in that part of the Constitution dealing with powers of the Parliament) to which I referred in generality in an earlier post. It reads:

"(xxiiiA) The provision of maternity allowances,
widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment,
pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits,
medical and dental services (but not so as to
authorize any form of civil conscription),
benefits to students and family allowances:"

As can be seen, this placitum covers just about every form of benefit that would be prospectively subject to income quarantining in the hands of any qualifying recipient. A huge proportion of the population stands to be disadvantaged consequential upon this long-unnoticed mis-reported referendum result.

Is income quarantining a smokescreen for this colossal failure?

Excellent posts FG! I cannot match this type of detail,-and thankfully I don't have to because posters like yourself will provide it!

(This of course is a cover for the simple fact that I'm not sure how to put up a link!! Don't tell me;-I'm unlikely to use them anyway).

Eva Cox the writer expressed her concern about income control-for all;-on Crikey. That was when I became aware that such a scheme that has solved NOTHING for indigenous peoples, was to be extended to the wider community.

I became aware only yesterday (with your first post FG) that this proposal has passed through the Senate last week.
Further research confirmed that Nick Xenophon had voted for it..

I have worked closely with Nick in the past, and to say I'm disappointed at his stance is a mega understatement. The reluctance to respond to my query by his office, now makes more sense.

He is to be present at a public forum later this month. I wasn't going to go. I booked yesterday.
Nick knows full well that I have no hesitation of taking those in his 'trade' on publicly.

I was perfectly content to discuss this matter in person, or by mail. I wasn't given the option to do so. Now I shall do so publicly. VERY publicly.

I've have already expressed my level of 'respect' for politicians;-this is the reason why.

SenXen used to be a good bloke.

TBC.,
____________________________________

2)

Perhaps I should reiterate here that I have no problem with abusive parents being swung around by their short hairs! It is more than a little irritating then, to suggest that one is protecting the 'rights' of abusive parents if one expresses concern/distaste for this offensive solution.

Further, my contention that it is a 'one size fits all' solution, still stands. There is absolutely NO compelling evidence that any overworked individual within a system that gives them the power to make life changing decisions for those whom they judge, -will NOT err on the side of 'caution' when taking those decisions.

There are ample examples,made public-;that coal face bureaucrats will take decisions that are beneficial to themselves in terms of liability. The bitter irony of saying this however, is that working within a framework of power without resource,-has the opposite affect. Neglect and abuse continues, and even grows.

How can anyone possibly see that throwing a bureaucratic net over all (most) 'welfare recipients' will resolve any damned thing? It is,-as usual-;a waste of precious manpower/fiscal resource, which SHOULD be focused where the problems lie.

Everyone makes mistakes.

In an earlier post, I attributed mikk's un-attributed quotation in his post of Tuesday, 29 June 2010 at 3:52:13 PM, 'First they came for the communists, ..' etc, to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Feeling a little guilty at having gone from memory, I checked up on the quotation. It was of course attributable to Martin Niemoller. See: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm . Same period, same Nazis, same denominational affiliation, but different outcomes. Niemoller survived the war, living until 1984. Bonhoeffer, who had voiced opposition to the Nazis from the outset, died, aged 39, in April 1945 in brutal circumstances in Flossenberg prison for his alleged involvement in the 1944 plot against Hitler. I regret unintentionally ever-so-briefly besmirching Bonhoeffer's unimpeachable reputation by my earlier mis-attribution.

During my Google search to confirm the origin of the quote, I came across this curious blast from the past: 'To Kevin from Dietrich, a few words of solace&#8206;', http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/to-kevin-from-dietrich-a-few-words-of-solace/story-e6frg6zo-1225886885078 . Interesting. I never knew Kevin Rudd was a fan of Deitrich Bonhoeffer.

Kevin, speared in brutal circumstances in Canberra in June 2010, but for precisely what? I think I may be beginning to understand. To the OLO General Discussion topic 'Should the Constitution be a federal election issue?' started on 31 March 2010, I made this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3550#84937 . At the time it was being contended that the next Federal elections would be largely on the health issue. My post concluded:

"Rudd and Abbott, on the health issue, are in Constitutional quicksand!"

The upcoming Federal elections are no longer primarily going to be campaigned upon the health issue, are they? But the government has walked into that same Constitutional quicksand via this income quarantining decision nevertheless.



"You know nothing. Is it not expedient that one man should be speared, rather than that the whole Party should perish?" (With apologies to the late Joseph Caiaphas.)

Sorry for the confusion, viewers, but it seems I must have made another mistake.

I was sure I had put up a post attributing mikk's un-attributed 'First they came for the Communists, but I said nothing, for I was not a Communist ...' to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I thought just after my post of Friday, 2 July 2010 at 10:10:32 PM.

I have just checked my email (at 7:30 AM AEST Sunday 4 July), and there is no notification from OLO of any post of mine having been taken down, so I will just have to take responsibility for all this unfortunate confusion myself,and accept that I somehow just failed to post it.

Since I can't put the referenced post into the thread in what would have been its proper place now, the best I can do is post this link to a twitpic of my apparently unposted but nevertheless intended-to-be-posted draft, just so viewers will know what I am talking about.

http://twitpic.com/21zm31

Viewers can use the 'View full size' mouse-over feature on the twitpic to view the text clearly if it is otherwise too small. Just wait a few seconds for the image to fully load, then scroll a little, and this option will become available to you if you hover your mouse over the top right area of the twitpic image.

Perhaps I was a bit too trenchant in my intended post, and some viewers may take offence at my nazism references. Let me make it plain that such references are really to what I see as an apparent 'groupthink' surrounding the various parliamentary parties mentioned. Clearly Kevin Rudd, as an admirer of Bonhoeffer, is no nazi at heart. Certainly Lindsay Tanner is not. I very much doubt Julia Gillard is. Then again, many, many good Germans were not nazis either, but nazism still ruled for a time there.

Lessons there for the learning.

Once again, sorry to all viewers for disrupting the flow of the thread with my incompetent posting.

Back to topic.

Houellebecq, in his post of Thursday, 1 July 2010 at 9:17:13 AM, asks:

"Where is all this outrage when we treat
aboriginals in this dreadful way?"

A perhaps not all that flippant answer might well be that the outrage is absent because, as the saying goes, "what the eye don't see, the heart don't grieve over". Poster 'dane' drew attention to "remote indigeneous communities [being] an exceptional case where social norms have broken down and have forced the government to take drastic action". Few in the Australian community at large will have seen these remote indigenous communities first hand, only perhaps through the eyes of others, others perhaps with ulterior objectives in mind that may have coloured their reporting of the precise nature of these remote communities' plight.

Given that Constitutional matters have come into relevance in this discussion, the great irony is that the referendum held in 1967, the referendum that secured the greatest proportion of 'Yes' votes in any referendum held since Federation, the one that resulted in the amendment of the then placitum (xxvi) of Section 51 of the Constitution, which read:

"(xxvi) The people of any race, other than
the aboriginal race in any State,
for whom it is deemed necessary
to make special laws:";

by the removal of the words ", other than the aboriginal race in any State," removed what was in fact a PROTECTION of the aboriginal community against just such discriminatory laws as permitted the recent Northern Territory intervention, where this welfare income quarantining started out.

Viewers will note that removing 'racism' from the Constitution was evidently not on the then bi-partisan agenda, for placitum (xxvi) today reads:

"(xxvi) The people of any race for whom it is
deemed necessary to make special laws:"

Those promoting that referendum sought removal of those words not to advance the cause of aboriginal Australians but to provide a means whereby the Australian community at large could be ripped off and set at each others' throats! And I thought I was giving aboriginal Australians the vote. They all had it by 1965!

Interesting stuff.

I had a squizz at the...er, Twitpic? (the UK refers to idiots as 'Twits' !).

I can understand fully where Mikk is coming from. There is a real irony in the condemnation of the 'nanny state' by more conservative thinkers; ironic because this action is right up their alley!!

That Labor today largely emulates Liberal philosophy, seems of no concern to them (Labor); clear evidence that there is little difference-if any at all-between the two majors.

My view is apolitical. I AM apolitical.

This pernicious and lazy scheme WILL engender a damn sight more interest when it comes into being. People are not so much in agreement with it, as being unaware of it or its potential impact on those already under a deal of pressure.

I feel a complete loathing for a Party that evolved as a 'Party of the people', that has instituted a system which blatantly creates and categorises an underclass.

Damn and blast them!

TBC: if I can!
______________________

2)!

WHY do we as a society feel such a need to condemn and vilify those who are struggling in society (unemployed people/....and yes;-also asylum seekers)--and yet there is hardly a murmur over the gross excesses of those who have ultimately created these disasters. Indeed, we seem to admire power and wealth-with little or no regard for how it was achieved.

We simply don't care. (Both Obama and Cameron have agreed that BP must not face collapse over its oil spill in the MexGulf. The livelihoods of thousands are damaged beyond repair--Obama's own nationals--......., but hey! BP and its cohorts in the matter, must be protected. See how it works?? 'Heads we win, tails you lose').

Nah! Don't concern yourselves with the travesty of that, folks-those on the arse end of society have a nice bared skin that we can kick black and blue.

Easy peasy.

YES. We must protect against abuses;-of the system; of children. Targeting ALL (two exceptions) is a disgraceful way to do it!

BUT: it is a popular way isn't it? "See? we can be tough on them-Labor can be tough on all these wastrels of public monies".

At the same time Gillard goes out of her way to minimise any offence to the mineco's!!

Governments are held to ransom by 'big business', because of its impact on the economy/employment.

Welfare recipients? Pffttt! They are of little consequence.

Greed IS good eh

FG the reason I didnt attribute that quote was I didnt want to get into the "nazi" argument. It is a good quote that happened to fit but I dont think we can go as far as saying the Australian government are nazis.

I still stand by my "nanny state" comments. There are a number of OLO posters who are quick to come in here and quote Mises and the like and critisise any government interference in their lives. They seem remarkably silent when it comes to the government nannying others though. Im sure they will be back bleating next time there is talk of a capital gains tax rise or any attempt to combat climate change but if it is the poor being shafted they are silent.

Ginx said:

<"WHY do we as a society feel such a need to condemn and vilify those who are struggling in society (unemployed people/....and yes;-also asylum seekers)--and yet there is hardly a murmur over the gross excesses of those who have ultimately created these disasters. Indeed, we seem to admire power and wealth-with little or no regard for how it was achieved.

We simply don't care. (Both Obama and Cameron have agreed that BP must not face collapse over its oil spill in the MexGulf. The livelihoods of thousands are damaged beyond repair--Obama's own nationals--......., but hey! BP and its cohorts in the matter, must be protected. See how it works?? 'Heads we win, tails you lose').

Nah! Don't concern yourselves with the travesty of that, folks-those on the arse end of society have a nice bared skin that we can kick black and blue.

Easy peasy.

YES. We must protect against abuses;-of the system; of children. Targeting ALL (two exceptions) is a disgraceful way to do it!

BUT: it is a popular way isn't it? "See? we can be tough on them-Labor can be tough on all these wastrels of public monies".

At the same time Gillard goes out of her way to minimise any offence to the mineco's!!

Governments are held to ransom by 'big business', because of its impact on the economy/employment.

Welfare recipients? Pffttt! They are of little consequence.

Greed IS good eh">

One of the best posts I've ever read so I am repeating it.
You got so much into a couple of paras.
Brilliant!

(Hiya Ginx:))

pynch

Poster Dan Fitzpatrick, in his post of Tuesday, 29 June 2010 at 8:11:26 PM, may well be correct in saying:

"... the income quarantining/management will not apply to either
aged or disabled pensioners, no matter where they live.

It will apply to people on most other forms of welfare, ..."



That's all very well as far as income quarantining itself may be concerned.



There may, however, very well be many more than just those people on what he describes as 'most other forms of welfare' adversely affected as a consequence of the evident inattention paid to the provisions of Section 128 of the Constitution over the last 64 years that the shamefully minimal and belated publicising of this proposal has now put the spotlight upon. Only immediate repeal of this legislation could perhaps extinguish this spotlight, although I fear that it might already be even too late for that.

Close ranks upon the matter of this colossal 64-year Constitutional oversight as they in all likelihood will try to do, both major political parties must share responsibility for what may now well be outside their control.

The US/Australia Free Trade Agreement exists. There has already been pressure from the US end in the interests of 'Big Pharma' for the abandonment of the Australian government subsidised Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. How must 'Big Pharma' now be rubbing its litigious hands together in anticipation of either blackmailing any Australian government into its abandoning that scheme, or mounting a challenge in the High Court to the constitutionality of Australian PBS legislation.



Millions of Australians, including working families, many self-funded retirees, and certainly ALL age and disability pensioners obtain great benefit from the existing PBS. To lose that benefit, and become exposed to the depredations of the US pharmaceutical industry's unregulated pricing policies, would constitute an enormous blow.



Pharmaceutical benefits are included in Section 51 of the Constitution's placitum (xxiiiA), the insertion of which into the Constitution as the result of a long un-noticed misreporting of its passage at a referendum in 1946 now appears defective.

TBC

Cheers Pynch! You are very kind....and so...SO discerning!!

I needed confirmation that I got a place in the public forum; I'd booked very late in the piece. Confirmation received this am. I'm in!

The group organising this, is a Right leaning collection of upwardly mobiles and retired and very comfortable persons..

I attended one of their meetings before-and behaved myself-...until: 'The Unfortunate Incident In The Carpark'. We've all met them-the type that physically gets into your space/face to press home their point.

That was the first time I used the terminology "Are you on day release?". I think so! They were suggesting that one Howard could walk on water, and when he was done;-turn it into wine!

Sod that!

Trying to access SenZen is costing me 10 bucks. Worth every cent. And on this occasion the 'chat' will be held in a venue of which I was on the management board!

I know ways to beat a hasty retreat without them even knowing that I'm not coming back!

(I occasionally get invited to some high end stuff-I was invited by a currently quite prominent Adelaide figure to a dinner at that same venue for the Liberal Party of which the Premier was to be present).

How kind! I DID make it clear that I wasn't an ardent supporter (my acquaintance knew this!), ..the thing is...; the nosh is posh! An irresistible draw!

The great man did the rounds of the large circular damask tableclothed...er,tables. Very irritating-my superb Duck a la Orangé was getting cold.

At the end of this indulgence, we were expected to file past the Grate (!!) Man-and shake his hand!

Do leave 'orf!

I tucked in and scarpered.
_____________________________

So? A flippant and light, anecdotal post?

Does it illustrate anything other than my trying to impress?

Ginx, in her post of Saturday, 3 July 2010 at 3:20:46 PM to this thread indicates an intention of raising this issue of income quarantining in person at a public forum at which Senator Xenophon is expected to be present.

Ginx in so doing promises to perform an immense service for OLO in general. On this specific issue, she will be removing any cop-out on the part of at least one elected representative to plausibly deny knowledge of concerns as to, and ramifications of, this income-quarantining legislation expressed here on OLO.

Whilst I am very confident many politicians, through their staff, if not personally, monitor expressions of opinion upon OLO, I have formed the impression that they do not wish to be obliged to take official notice of specific documented or referenced claims as to apparent improprieties that may surface on OLO from time to time.

This issue of plausible deniability of knowledge is perhaps the missing link to the answering of GrahamY's question posed in the current General Discussion topic 'PM Gillard endorses OLO approach to debate but does it work?', http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3773&page=0

Perhaps I am performing a 'forum jump' in suggesting the debates on OLO that not only proceed in spite of attempts to force 'political correctness' upon the Forum, can and should substitute for the wider community debate that would have been occurring but for PC and MSM suppression. I believe one way to make them so substitute is to oblige politicians to have official knowledge of their content, especially any claimed factual bases to points made in debate.

Ginx is about to make the OLO approach to debate work in the real world. Other viewers need to too.

For those who do not need the anonymity necessary to sustain the focus upon quality of any argument, not on the person that may be making it, they can short-out the 'plausible deniability' cop-out of the politicians by emailing (including links to the relevant OLO dialogues or posts) them in their real names and asking 'what about this?'.