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?'.