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.