It’s a shame about its anti- religious prejudice, but the article raises an important point about the limits to government’s scope to delegate its authority.

I’m generally all for privatisation and contracting out if and when it delivers better or cheaper services that direct government provision, and I suspect the church groups probably do a better job than the old CES.

BUT, I believe there are certain powers that governments should not delegate, and among them is the power to coerce. This can occur when a ‘client’ has no option but to use a particular service, or when a service provider exercising government-derived authority has more control and sanctions over the community then other person-to-person or business-to-business relationships. I oppose non-government agencies’ involvement in policing the requirements for receipt of unemployment benefits for the same reason I’d oppose privatisation or contracting-out of prisons, police services, the army or tax collection. It confers on non-government agencies privileged and inappropriate power over their fellow citizens.

The fact that the service providers happen to be church groups is immaterial.

The Howard government has outsourced employment services because employment is not a real priority. Everyone knows that the real figures for unemployment are much much higher. Not the 4% that is being touted, more like 11%. this is because the definition and classification is based on a person deemed employed having to work just one hour per week. Non profit organizations means non payment of tax. The fact that these multi million dollar industries pay no taxes means they make profit. The catholic church is known to be one of the biggest multi nationals on the planet. The Salvation Army by it's very name and with the promotion of its magazine War Cry promotes war. Those that are glibly proclaiming that there is no harm that church organizations that make profits keep private individuals records just show how far this country has gone with little expectations of the implementation of laws. Privacy laws.

Howard is just trying to outsource responsibility for the long-term employed and get somebody else to take the heat for the imposition of harsh Centrelink penalties for non-conformance. There are already some cracks starting to show in this arrangement.

Ultimately the private organisations are in it for profit and personal information is a valuable resource so why shouldn't they find other uses for it? If not on an organisational level then there must be a few cunning individuals out there that will find a way to make a dollar or two with the information.

Nevertheless, going by past practices, I wouldn't trust some religious organisations to look after my children so why should I entrust them with my personal details.

The more we come to depend on the government to manage our lives the more or greater the opportunity for our personal information to become publicly accessible. The more government is asked to do, the higher the taxation. Don't want taxes to increase, outsource. The more we come to depend on private institutions to manage our lives the more or greater the opportunity for our personal information to become publicly accessible.

No one is tracked more than the internet user.

Don't worry Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt this is organised religions last gasps. The secularisation of religion project is nearly finished at least in the western world. Phase two the middle east is underway.
:-)

Kenny:

And we should be deeply disturbed by this phenomenon !

Vengeance is theirs.