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?