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?

What about the cost of housing? Have rents been increasing? Is the cost of housing affecting the ability of parents to provide for their children? Is the cost of housing contributing to rising homelessness?

The housing affordability crisis is totally due to government policy. It is severely affecting the ability of disadvantaged Australians to provide for themselves and their dependents. How ironic then that the government decides that the failings of disadvantaged Australians is a result of moral decay and requires further regulation. How ironic that a reduction of government regulation would more likely improve the lot of the disadvantaged.

Why did the author make no mention of housing?

What is so objectionable about this is quite simple:

Yet again a Government takes the easy option and punishes all for the sins of the few.

I could never EVER say that in order to protect those on GovIncomes,-we must ignore those who are neglecting children in particular;-and those who drink/drug their income away.

That would be a callous solution just to protect those who are doing the right thing.

Equally, I will never agree with a programme that lumps everyone in together in order to curb the behaviour of the minority.

I do not believe for a nanosecond that most of us-,or indeed the Government, believe that the majority of GovIncomRecipients are malingerers/abusers/drug takers. If that WERE the case, then there would be clear evidence of it. Society in lower socio-economic areas would be in total meltdown: children removed from every other house/paddy wagons permanently full/drug labs exploding.

It isn't happening.

The MAJORITY of those on GovIncomes ARE responsible. They eat as nutritionally as I do (lacking this or that at times-but doing the best we can).

WHY should then should ALL in the designated groups be targeted?

Because of fiscal expediency;--of the type that looks at an easy solution-rather than spending funds on staffing at proper levels of those Dept's who are supposed to deal with abuse/drugs etc.,

Easy-cheap-and controlling. This programme should be of concern to ALL. Because it sets a 'big brother' precedent of the highest order.

Interestingly 'we' are concerned about the 'personal liberty' control of net censorship.

But not income 'management'? Why is that?

Because the former affects US. The latter affects YOU.

Ignore this at your peril. This move is a calculated and cold step toward the control of the individual. For those many many, who have/will/do the right thing, it is a steel trap of control-and an act of blatant discrimination, and public humiliation.

Allow this strategy for THEM, and it will inexorably envelop YOU in time.

As a specific, court ordered, measure welfare quarantining might have some role in helping people manage their money better - but only in exceptional circumstances with some pretty strong safeguards.

The reason the govt thinks that it is a good idea to put it across the board is that when they introduced it for Indigenous people in the NT, many non affected people thought it was a good idea.

Many of the posts on forums such as this openly agreed with this draconian control, despite the lack of evidence that there is any real merit in it.

This legislation slipped through because most people seemed to assume it would only affect Indigenous Australians. I wonder what will be next, grog laws similar to the NT and discrete communities with no, or only light beer allowed, and 2 hour opening times per day.

How does the saying go?
Bad things happen when good people do nothing.

Aime says:

".. 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."

Its even worse than that Aime. The very Constitutional provision that enabled the creation by legislation of many, if not all the categories of welfare benefits that are now the targets of this income quarantining policy, now appears itself to be defective.

The Social Services referendum of 1946 was declared as having passed, and as a consequence placitum (xxiiiA) to Section 51 was inserted into the Constitution. It seems, however, that nobody checked both the precise wording of Section 128 (that Section of the Constitution prescribing, among other things, how referendum votes are to be counted) and the record of the votes counted, for if that had been done it would have become apparent that that referendum did not secure a majority of 'Yes' votes in a majority of States. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3550#84937



It seems that in the 64 years since this referendum not one member of the Parliament from either of the two major political parties has spoken out about this defect!



Given the statutory responsibility imposed upon the Governor-General by Section 61 of the Constitution as to the maintenance of the Constitution, both Governor-General Bryce and Prime Minister Gillard appear about to enter upon 'interesting times'. I should imagine that the Governor-General would be asking advice of her Prime Minister as to how this now seen to be defective amendment to the Constitution, with its potentially immense ramifications affecting literally millions of Australians, is to be rectified.

Prime Minister Gillard would be wise to take great pains to ensure that any such advice is not itself defective.

For myself, I can only observe how monstrously unfair it would be to all currently entitled to seemingly unconstitutionally provided benefits to suddenly lose them in the face of such all-pervading dereliction of Parliamentary duty by so many over these 64 years. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10607#175737

Very poor show.

Aime's bleak observation that:

".. 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."

seems to constitute a rather impenetrable cloud of gloom and hopelessness so far as ordinary Australian voters having a real and workable electable alternative at upcoming elections is concerned.

It could come to pass, however, that the Governor-General might receive advice from her Executive Council that she exercise some of her powers to effectively provide a formal 'none of the above' choice for Australian voters at the upcoming Federal elections. The circumstances precipitating such Vice-Regal action would need to be exceptional, and they are.

The discovery of a defective alteration to the Constitution is unprecedented, and the requirement to rectify it fraught by reason of the fact that each of the major political parties likely to provide Executive Councillors to advise the Governor-General as to its rectification is tainted with the serious incompetence of either not noticing this defect, or wilfully concealing it, over a period of 64 years right up to the present.

A great strength and safeguard of the Constitution is that the Governor-General may appoint whomsoever she will as Executive Councillors, being bound only by convention that those Councillors be appointed from among the membership of the Parliament. The present Parliament, perceivably conflicted in its interests, and characterised by the fact that its membership consists entirely of candidates who, although duly elected, are essentially self-recommended for those positions, is hardly likely to be the place from which dispassionate and sound counsel will come.

She needs Councillors there to do a job, not get one.

A challenge exists as to how the Governor-General could not only be seen to be, but in reality be, non-politically partisan and satisfying of full Constitutional propriety in so doing.

Could such challenge be met?

Yes it could!

What may she, and what are we then to, do?

It was never my intention to divert attention from this unheralded and ill-advised legislation by the raising of concerns as to the constitutionality of the very benefits themselves, the recipients of which are intended to become the targets. It was my intention to show the much wider consequences for many more in the Australian community than just what might be considered 'welfare recipients' the collapse of this legislative castle-built-on-sand may entail.

Given the good work ginx, who has posted on this thread, intends to do, which is described in a post to another current and related Article discussion comments thread, 'If your income was quarantined', http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10607#176703 , I intend to further explore the constitutional and electoral aspects of the revelation of this defective amendment to the Constitution that I can visualize arising therefrom on the 'An unfashionable monarchy?' thread, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10628&page=0 .

My apologies to other erstwhile intending posters if the perceivably unanswerable claims I have put up on this thread have threatened to stultify what may have otherwise been intended to be posted. I'll get my monologue out of your way now. There are doubtless many more aspects to this proposal that deserve discussion.