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.