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.)