it's sad to see the mentality behind such a scheme - patronising, authoritarian and suspicious of anyone deemed to be in 'need'.

It's an extension of the way we see boat people - as somehow 'illegitimate' and thus 'illegal'. So we resort to an atavistic set of responses, straight from our convict past - make them wait, make them suffer, make them pay for being less than we are.

No wonder we're not a republic yet - we don't seem to have any sense of obligation to each other, or anyone else.

As we treat, so will we be treated.

THANK-YOU! for bringing this to the 'front burner' again.I will post comment in response to other posts, though I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised at the compassionate reaction of most OLO members when this was raised previously!

To that end: Thanks SHRODE!

A terrible legislation that only serves to punish those who are often, through no fault of their own, forced to live on a very limited income.

I just wish I had the power to take away everything of value from these idiot legislators including their income and wealth and chuck them onto the dole for a year or so. It would certainly open their eyes to the fact that not everyone on unemployment benefits or disability pensions are lowlife losers. They might also have to face the stark reality that there really isn't jobs out there for everybody. I'd like to see Gillard or Abbott forced to move away from family and friends to pick fruit with stinging ants running up and down their arms whilst being eaten alive by mosquitoes, fried alive by the sun, living in sub standard accommodation while they did so and living on a wage that's often little more than a joke.

It's a sad indictment of our consumer driven system that the people running the country are nothing more than pumped-up little tin gods that wouldn't know a decent days work if it bit them on the a.se! Our National leaders have zero compassion for those at the lower levels of society and the worst part of all is that no matter how we vote at the next election, it won't make a bit of difference. One of the top two parties will come to power and continue to push their dogma down our throats.

Curse Labor and Gillard, curse the Liberals/National Party and Abbott. What a sorry pack of bas..rds the political "leaders" of our once great land have become!

In an ideal world, these measures would automatically apply in circumstances where it is genuinely needed, regardless of race etc.

I would imagine it to be easy enough to see if family money is being wasted, but single people will be part of it too. It gets pushed through, under the banner of protecting starving children, and then is used as a tool to persecute the unemployed.

The facts speak for themselves, with things like alcohol management having a positive effect. Perhaps this scheme is about getting some rent from public housing tenants in communities. The truth of the matter, is it will be effective in communities on a fairly wide scale, and would also benefit some non indigenous people who aren't doing the right thing. There will be a lot of applications for exemptions if they try to put it on everybody, things like car registration are big money for a poor person. I'm sure quite a few poor people get behind in their rent at rego time, and most catch up quickly afterwards. Unless quaranteening takes care of rego as well, you would be punishing them for being poor and unemployed as well as ensuring they do nothing independently because they cant get anywhere.

I repeat what I said in the previous thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10607&page=0#175295 A vicious assault on the weakest and poorest and bound to be extended to those who arent on welfare before you can say authoritarian paternalism.

I believe that the only time this sort of income quarantining should be at least trialled, is when children are known to be neglected.

If their parent/parents are neglecting them physically by not giving them sufficient food, medical attention, clothing, and protection, by spending all welfare money on drugs, alcohol and/or gambling for themselves or others instead, then they obviously need help with financial management.

What else would the do-gooders suggest that will save these kids?
Will we take them all away from their neglectful families and be accused of another 'stolen generation'?

Adults on their own should certainly be left to deal with their own financial mess if they don't seek help for themselves, but surely we can't leave neglected children without some sort of help to get what they need?