On the ground evidence given surreptitiously, by wives and mothers of alcoholics, drug addicts, stand over merchants/humbugging relatives, is at complete odds with author and her so-called "evidence"?
That said, the process needs to be completely colour blind and seriously widened, to end forever the idea that is a colour based program?
[As inferred or implied by the author; and or, other never ever satisfied urban activists?]
Rather than a pragmatic one that ensures kids get the education that is arguably essential; and the only way they can improve their whole of life prospects, or escape post code poverty traps and generational penury.
Rhrosty.

I'm not sure why Mundine deserves any support, but that aside, the transfer of a scheme for which Aboriginal people were the guinea pigs to communities in poverty outside the NT is a disgrace. Income management does not end drug or alcohol dependency, nor addiction to gambling. It only forces desperate people to turn on their neighbours for money to feed their addictions. Whole communities are stigmatised and punished so that the bourgeoisie in its suburbs can feel satisfied that "something is being done".

See this series of articles:

http://vanguard-cpaml.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/first-it-applied-only-to-aborigines.html

http://vanguard-cpaml.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/oppose-extension-of-nts-income.html

http://vanguard-cpaml.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/quarantine-and-manage-profits-not.html

Bess Price, who lives in Yuendumu and knows more much more about the issues than someone living a comfortable life away from remote camps and towns, supports income management. As she states, kids are getting more food and the humbugging (which is really corrupted kinship) where relatives 'do the rounds' to cadge off others is not as prevelant.

Of course, it is not a perfect system and there are good arguments as to why it should not be compulsory. After all, a government that tries to tell you how and where to spend money is running awfully close to a totalitarian one. The Intervention was well intentioned but horribly implemented with undue haste. It did some good but there needs to be far better programs put in place before any real positive change will occur.

Labor isn't punishing the poor, the ALP is.

So whacky. So loose with the facts.

Jenny Macklin is not now and never has been Minister for Health.
Income Management is not bad policy. It works very well for many people living in remote communities, and is extremely popular amongst many of them.
The primary benefit of IM, apart from preventing so much being spent on grog, drugs and gambling, is that it helps prevent bullies, intimidators, humbuggers and exploitative types generally from cornering so much of the money needed for the wellbeing of kids and other vulnerable people.
The NT Enquiry which produced The Little Children Are Sacred report was not an enquiry into child sexual abuse. It was an enquiry into child sexual abuse, other abuses and neglect.
Income Management is not now, nor ever was, race specific.
IM was applied in communities with very high levels of social dysfunction.
Income Management was called Income Management from the beginning. Income quarantining was always just an alternative descriptor.
Non-Aboriginal welfare recipients living in prescribed areas were subject to IM from the beginning. (My next door neighbour, the pensioner father of the local clinic manager, was one such person).
Income Managed funds do not have to be spent on the things listed by the author. Income Managed funds can be spent on anything except alcohol, gambling, pornography, tobacco and illegal goods such as drugs.
Studies have shown that less money is being spent on alcohol following the introduction of IM.
Somebody should tell Glen Brennan that many Aboriginal people in the NT, including many welfare recipients, are not subject to Income Management or the NTER.
Rudd's statement is not in any way inconsistent with IM.
Coglan is confusing IM with the SEAM program in at least two places in her diatribe.
Coglan seems to think that poor people don't have any capacity or reason for taking some personal responsibility or agency in their own lives, or that they should be held accountable for their own actions.
I believe that Mundine agrees with IM.
So do they really pay this person at a university, and let her teach students?

So do they really pay this person at a university, and let her teach students?
Dan fitzpatrick,
Sadly, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of educated people like her. So many in fact that they actually get considered as normal & in most cases as experts. Governments in turn due to lack of wisdom & in many instances, integrity base many policies on the advise of such people. Hence the dysfunction.