I’ve got a feeling that the mix of a seemingly random collection of crazy authoritarian policy ideas (covenant marriage, raising the pension age to 70, bringing back WorkChoices, the federal government taking over everything) and arrogant self-congratulation that appear to make up the content of Tony Abbott’s book based on the extracts that have appeared is not doing him or the Liberal Party any good.
And will anyone actually buy the thing?
Possibly the only winner in this publishing deal is Labor (and maybe News Limited…)
Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett.
The shorter Tony Abbott: Howardism without Howard in a time that no longer suits it.
I wonder why raising the pension age is authoritarian? If so, why isn’t Labour raising it from 65 to 67 also authoritarian? (I have argued on my blog we could and should cut it to 60.)
Raising the pension age is one response of capitalist governments to people living longer.
Both parties are trapped in the same logic – profit before people.
As to more Commonwealth power the trend in Australia as in most countries has been to the concentration of state power in its central agency. Abbott merely recognises this reality.
His marriage proposals (oh dear!) are I think an attempt to appeal to the Palin drones in Australia. (Oh dear oh dear!)
I suspect Abbott’s book will be read widely. I don’t think the Left should dismiss the ideas of the Right unseen. We need to be able to address and rebut them and that means reading their material.
Should I read this book? I just can’t see why I should take Abbott seriously. He is creepy, there is something oleaginous about him. The sort of person you would move away from on the bus.
So, could someone tell me, because I don’t want to read the book, if he has any ideas apart from his weird marriage one and raising pension ages.
What’s authoritarian about raising the pension age? Isn’t having a compulsory pension system in the first place ‘authoritarian’? I don’t think Bismark would have objected to that label.
I think the key here is that people should make their own choice about when they want to retire. I’d remind everyone that the Liberal party purportedly stands for individual choice. Abbott seems to want to make people’s for them. I don’t support the raising of the pension age to 67, either, btw.
Tony Abbott would presumably argue that if people want to retire early, that’s their choice. However, if they do so, they shouldn’t expect the government to pay for it.
That said, if Tony Abbott does have ambitions to ever become Prime Minister, he’s got a pretty strange way of going about it. More than anything else, Tony Abbott frightens people with his authoritarianism on social issues. The only way he’s ever going to have a chance at being PM if he makes it clear that, whatever his private views on such matters, he’s not going to try to impose them in law.
And then he writes a book in which he seems to be confirming that he will try to impose his moral views through law, on top of what Mark has rightly identified as a random grab-bag of mostly highly unpopular positions.
I doubt that he’s got any chance of ever becoming leader, Rob. I think a lot of the women MPs in the Libs would never vote for him for a start!
Yes, I think Tony’s hopes of becoming Prime Minister were dashed in 1902.
But …. but Tony said last night on the 7.30 Report that the days of studying till you’re 25, retiring at 55, blowing your super, then going on the pension at 65 for the rest of your life, should be over.Why is this bloke always attacking me?
“I think a lot of the women MPs in the Libs would never vote for him for a start!”
Mind you, I have heard that he is a source of keen fascination for a certain kind of women. It might be to do with the boyish charm or the impish grin but Geraldine Doogue, for instance, gushes at the very mention of his very name.
But Geraldine Doogue is a Catholic!
Pauk Burns,
just keep in good enough shape to keep your years tiocking over, and you’ll stay ahead of him. Achilles and the Tortoise, except that you’re Achilles* and you began the race ahead of him.
*He’d have to be elected PM and he’d have to persuade his Party to kiss goodbye a sizeable chunk of the grey vote.
Neither of these seem likely in the near future, Paul
sorry !!! Paul
Paul @9 – He’s attacking you because you’re not listening to the Church Elders Wise Advice
It’s the same patronising “I know what’s good for you ’cause I’m a better Christian than you” attitude. Even the various Christians I know are creeped out by the guy – the audience he’s playing to is so small I’d be surprised if he keeps his seat next time round…
Maybe he got given one-too-many important jobs at Sunday school in his formative years
I might actually read his book and see how genuine he is about this stuff. Even if it’s ghost-written you can usually get the feel for how much is “pander-to-the-crowd” and how much otherwise.
“But Geraldine Doogue is a Catholic!”
So is the Pope!
I wonder which side Abbott’s backing in the Sydney Uni Liberal Club?
I would have thought that bringing back workchoices would be the political killer, especially since Labor’s Workchoices lite version gives the impression of working for labour and does work for capital.
I suspect that Abbott’s desire to amend the Constitution to allow the Cth to overturn State Legislation has less to do with centralisation of power and more to overturning laws that he simply doesn’t like – like euthenasia or gay marriage laws.
It would be a better proposal to say that the Cth can legislate with respect to anything but the s. 109 inconsistency provision only applies to laws where the Cth has jurisdiction under s. 51 or 52. In all other cases, an inconsistent State law would prevail (to the extent of the inconsistency).
steveh @ 14,
Catholics don’t go to Sunday School, steveh. or at least they didn’t when I was a kid. They brainwash at school five days a week.
Oh, I got to stop this. (Rubbishing the Abbott.) The Archangel Michael will strike me dead.
Paul,
you must stop it, BUT please advise on a point of theology. Is an ARCHangel a kind of central, higher ranking angel?
Would an Archangel be allowed to over-rule a mere angel? Much like Mr Abbott wants to see the Commonwealth over-rule some Sate decisions?
Does he strive to reproduce some features of the Heavenly Polity here in our wide brown earthly abode?
And is the Heavenly Polity eternal, or does it resemble some ancient Jewish understanding of Kings & Princes & Chancellors & Yeomen & Yes-men & Peasants & Hittites?
Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett.
Mark I think there are very strong economic and social arguments for raising the pension age but even if you don’t accept them, I don’t believe there are grounds for calling them ‘crazy’ or ‘authoritarian’.
Torquemada Tony is trying very hard to distinguish his position within the Liberal brand.
I think he has every chance of popular success.
What? You say this isn’t Spain and it isn’t 1938?
D**n!
As others have mentioned, raising the pension age is neither crazy nor authoritarian, but sensible and appropriate.
Abbott admits that the Libs got chucked out because of Workchoices, to some extent, but he wants to bring it back. People will be so much receptive to it with higher unemployment. That’s right Tony, really screw people when you think you can get away with it. Nice one. I don’t think the next Liberal Prime Minister is in parliament yet.
Could this be the next Liberal Prime Minister?
“As others have mentioned, raising the pension age is neither crazy nor authoritarian, but sensible and appropriate.”
Not me. That decision, if it were to be made, and the one already decided on by Swan, shows all the signs of the arbitrary use of power against a largely powerless and disadvantaged group. It is particularly unfair given that a Future Fund has been set up to ensure that ex-government employee retirement needs have been guaranteed to be timely and comfortable.
I never quite got the need for the Future Fund, joe2. It was my understanding that the C’wealth super scheme was already totally self-funded through investment. I remember my dad being quite pleased that Gough had failed to shove it all into consolidated revenue, and I wouldn’t have thought that the legal barriers to that would have gone away since then.
As to the raising of the pension age, I can see their point (although I’m glad I’m just old enough to be unaffected), particularly as I hope we’ll see our population and economy shrink rather than increase even further into unsustainability. That doesn’t mean I like it – I reckon that even though we’re healthier and have a greater life expectancy than earlier generations, you’re pretty worn out by the time you hit 65.
Mark @ 5
Would you support people in their twenties being allowed to retire and receive an income from the government until they die? Would you like to see the pension age reduced? In my opinion If the state is going to provide an age pension there’s going to have to be some arbitrary cut-off.
I can accept that for some people, labourers as an example, working until they’re 67 or 70 probably sounds next to impossible. Unfortunately there is about to be a large chunk of society retiring, many of whom will at some point be reliant on the state to provide an income. Raising the retirement age, while being a blunt instrument, is a reasonable policy response, although it shouldn’t be the only response. It certainly isn’t authoritarian; an authoritarian policy would deny people the right to finance an early retirement with their own private savings.
Personally, I have no particular problem with raising the age at which people qualify for the pension, but I’d do it voluntarily.
One could easily imagine giving financial incentives to defer accepting the monetised parts of the pension (in part or wholly) — e.g. allowing higher income and assets threshholds and/or a slightly larger pension when you did claim it, allowing you access (subject to the usual means and asset tests) to the health and PBS parts of it at 65.
Anyone who was genuinely physically unfit to work at 65 could pass a less testing fitness test (perhaps based mainly on mobility) and get disability pension.
I suspect that there are ways that you could package benefits for people that would make it attractive for them to keep working full or part time, or to take pension only when it was needed to top up their income.
There are genuine health and social benefits to working in some places, and IMO, there are probably thus savings to be made in health this way as well.
I’m no fan of Abbott, but the reality is that the pool of funds for benefit is likely to be quite limited and thus universal benefits are likely to be meagre. There should of course be serious means and asset tests in the system whatever is done on age. Most super is not going to sustain people in anything like the conditions they’ve had while working for 25 years. Extending the period during which they can accumulate super, and shortening the time they will be drawing down on it and any pension they might have are surely reasonable measures to protect the value of retirement benefits to those who actually are disadvantaged and the integrity of the other social systems on which those who have little good alternative but to retire depend.
I oppose almost everything that Abbott stands for, but I do respect the fact that he stands for something. He is open about his political philosophy, and explains how his philosophy underpins his positions on particular issues. He is not attempting to obscure his opinions through spin or obfuscation. I respect that, although I do not share his views on almost all issues.
Matt C@31
Agreed. I heard him say on Breakfast (RN) that the opposition couldn’t get by merely opposing — they had to say what they were for, and even if I regard almost everything Abbott says as either cant or worse (and sometimes in contradiction to some previous thought), I much prefer him being explicit. That is the starting point for an honest debate.
Ambi @ 20,
Will try to give a serious answer to your question on Saturday Salon shortly.
This is all terribly sectarian. Why are you singling out Mad Monks for criticism and not mentioning Mad Mullahs, Potty Pastors, Loony Lamas and Barmy Swamis?
And we might ask whether ad hom directed at people with intellectual disabilities can be ethically defencible. being mad is certainly not as open to censure as being bad.
That said, maybe we should treat all monks equally. Let’s face it, a belief in metaphysics ought to put a caveat on any claim not capable of corroboration from reliable sources.
I think mad in this case is allowable as in Rasputin. And Tony easily falls into that metaphor.
oh noes, do you mean he has the Ear of the Czarina ??
Her nose or her ear?
It would be the ear. He needs a template.
He is open about his political philosophy, and explains how his philosophy underpins his positions on particular issues. He is not attempting to obscure his opinions through spin or obfuscation. I respect that, although I do not share his views on almost all issues.
You could say that about Ted Bulpit or Anne Coulter. And as far as explaining how your philosophy underpins your position, all wingnuttery has its own weird internal and unassailable logic. In Abbott’s case he has the Bible, which can be twisted to give credence to almost any authoritarian mindset.
In response to a number of commenters – raising the pension age is politically dangerous. Suggesting that it be raised to 70 is politically crazy. It gives the government cover for something a lot of people disagree with – by going even further. It’s part of an ensemble of policy proposals which aren’t actually unified by any real political philosophy, and which are authoritarian in the sense that they appear to represent “Tony knows best” – rather than being based on either a sense of the politically possible/advantageous or on any particular reasoning.
There was one strand of reasoning he revealed to Kezza in the interview
1) pension age used to be way above the median age of death, so in days of yore the age pension was a kind of safety net for the (very few) long-living citizens
2) these days people live longer, and most are as fit as trout when they reach 65
3) society shouldn’t “lock out” the seniors from their chance to continue participating in the world of work
2) and 3) sounded a bit like Peter Co$tello’s talk of “gold collar workers”: senior wise persons working P/T, giving of their wisdom, drawing smaller pensions, not touching their super… his vision always had $$$ prominent
I got the impression Tone’s ‘reasoning’ was at base to do with costs to the general working, tax-paying population. Not having read his book, I can’t be sure.
There are no doubt arguments for it, Ambi, and some people have made some. Abbott’s, though, seems hardly coherent. It strikes me as being all of a piece with his “sacrifice your self interest to do what is right” schtick though, with Tone deciding who should sacrifice and what is right.
There are well-attested actuarial figures that demonstrate that a male secondary school teacher who retires at age 60 has a life expectancy of 17 years. That same male secondary teacher who retires at 65 has a life expectancy of 18 months.
Folks are welcome to extrapolate those figures into other occupations and to 70 y-o retirees.
Torquemada Tony’s nostrums would add up to a baby boomer holocaust.
Mark’
I can’t see why raising the pension age to 67 is democratic, while raising it to 70 is authoritarian. In fact, Tony A’s approach is more democratic, as he has at least said what he thinks, whereas you will struggle long and hard to find any statements from Kevin Rudd or Wayne Swan about the aged pension before they raised it from 65 to 67.
Its like Kevin Rudd on recent Australian economic policy. When Howard and Costello did it, it was extreme neo-liberalism. When Hawke and Keating did it, it was micro-economic reform. He’s going to have to decide soon whether he is for or against economic policy directions as they have largely been since 1983.
Terry, I’m not defending Labor in this context. I also agree with you that there’s a big hole in the middle of KRudd’s economics/ideology narrative (as put forward in his two essays) but political discourse doesn’t necessarily have to be either coherent or true for it to be effective.
Mark
I think Rudd can only get away with this by dint of the bereft nature of the opposition. I’m also not sure that economic populism wins elections in Australia, as voters do see a connection between budget deficits and interest rates.
An interesting test will be how they respond to the Productivity Commission on book prices. If they buy the Tim Winton arguement that Australian publishing can only survive through higher taxes on Dan Brown novels at K-Mart, that would certainly go against the often-stated views of at least three Cabinet members – Lindsay Tanner, Craig Emerson and Simon Crean.
Terry, I think you’re looking for more consistency than you’ll get. I doubt that they’d think that the book issue is all that important – it might be something that is the subject of a pragmatic accommodation to interests, like the ‘Buy Australian’ programme announced today to avoid a fight with the unions at ALP conference.
I’m not sure about that! It’d be interesting if Possum crunched the numbers to see if there’s any correlation.
Katz,
Why do the analysis on the utterly irrelevant musings of Tony Abbott when we can work on the basis of announced ALP government policy? How many baby boomers do you think the ALP will kill? It’s potentially a lot from the figures you’ve quoted.
BBB
Terry@47
Australian chidren’s book authors have flourished under the limited copyright protection prevailing. Correlation is not causation but it is notable …
Katz@44, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
David Irving(no relation) @ 28
“It was my understanding that the C’wealth super scheme was already totally self-funded through investment.”
The mind is getting a bit hazy as it was a few years ago now when I was a C’wealth public servant but my recollection is that the employee’s contribution of x% was invested (and, indeed, if the investments showed a negative return at the end of the year they were “topped up” to zero, ie no loss to your contributions). However the Commonwealth’s contribution of y% was totally unfunded, ie not set aside and invested. The employee’s contribution plus interest earned was paid as a lump sum on retirement or you could buy a non-indexed pension with it (or even a bit of both) The Commonwealth’s “contribution” was used to pay your pension, indexed to the CPI. That scheme, which sounds like the one your dad would be in, has now gone by the board.
No argument there, BBB.
Thanks Helen, it’ll take at least a week to wipe that chap’s spittle off my computer screen.
…while Tony can retire at 55 on his full super pension (with 15.4 per cent of his gross salary contributed by the taxpayer). Yee haw, just 3 years to go, Tone!
meanwhile in a church nearby…
father abbott I have sinned
My son how have you transgressed?
Well father, it says in the good book…
The bible?
No father, your book,
Continue my son
It says I should work until I am 90, yet I am only 77 and I feel incapable of continuing…
Your sin is greed and selfishness my son, think of the party
Father Abbott I try but I feel lacking in courage, devotion and commitment to public sacrifice
I shall pray for your soul my son…
Father Abbott I have sinned for I also love another
There is no sin in love my daughter
Father Abbott but I am married to another…
You are indeed troubled my daughter for it is written that marriage is sacrosanct and only grievous fault can split asunder what is joined by God
But Father she loves me not and my new lover is far more understanding…Father, Father?
“Tony knows best” how the unemployed should spend the pittance granted them for survival. He continues to argue that the appalling welfare quarantining, his party applied to the the aboriginal community, should be extended to the wider population.
Too bad, Jenny Macklin appears to “know no better” by not abolishing the original descriminative policy that he uses to mount his case.
I’ve said it before—Tony Abbott is the Eddie Ward of the modern conservatives in Oz. He’s the one true believer speaking truth to power blah blah blecch. Sure, there’s an outside chance he might adapt himself to the way politics is retailed to most Australians in this day and age, but that’s irrelevant to his main jo; appealing to the collective lizard brain of his party’s supporters.
“His main job”
Lizard brain indeed, Nickws.
Stay classy, Mr. People Skills.
Now he has a celibacy adviser! Tony becoming the Sarah Palin of the Liberal Party
Oh shit, if she is correct they are in deeper trouble than can be imagined. It also begs the questions, who are the others and when will they show it?
And then they toasted the Queen. Great day out for Louise Adler.
It seems that Tone has engaged Josephine Ul as his celibacy adviser for some time.
Mr. Justice Higgins’ Judgement in the Abbott and Costello Defamation Action Against Random House, Publishers of Bob Ellis’ “Goodbye, Jerusalem”
Interestingly, celibacy and chastity were issues of fact in this case.
joe2 @56
“appalling welfare quarantining”
I am sympathetic to welfare quarantining but would like to be appraised of counter-views.
I have friends who worked in the Blacktown amongst welfare-dependent communities and they say it is not uncommon for the budget to be spent thus:
1) Rent
2) Marijuana, Beer, Ciggies
3) Pizza
4) Bread, Breakfast Cereal, Milk, Tea, Coffee
5) Repeat 2), 3), 4) in rough order.
OK, its approximately a University Student’s staple diet, but doesn’t work well applied to a single-mum plus two or three young kids scenario.
Why not welfare quarantine hard-core dysfunctional situations like this ? The benefit is that welfare money is not wasted on marijuana, beer and ciggies.
Baraholka #64, how do you distinguish in practice between the single parent with kids who has a payday night out at the pub with friends once a fortnight and the single parent with kids who is hitting on the goon in the fridge every day?
To rephrase my previous comment more generally, are you sympathetic to welfare quarantining and income management across an entire category of benefit recipients, or do you support it in specific individual cases whree “hard core dysfunction” is identified?
Paul @ 65
One parent is doing it every day, one is doing it once a fortnight.
The hard-core dysfunctional scenario describes a family in which the carers are slaves to an addiction or too devestated by their own life experiences to be able to budget for basic needs or provide care for their dependents. In effect the budget is being spent totally on the whims of the carer with sometimes no real thought for the needs of the children.
But I accept your basic point. It’s very difficult in practioe to ascertain the real level of at-home care given to children unless you live there.
This being teh case I would support welfare quarantining for all welfare recipients unless there are good counter arguments.
Foster and disability carers allowances? Training support stipends? Family Tax Benefit B?
Liam @ 68
Whatever the Unemployment benefit is now called.
It’s called Newstart Allowance, and I think you would find that most claimants (including those who have been displaced from what had seemed to be reasonably secure jobs by the GFC) would not be impressed that part of the penalty for losing their jobs through no fault of their own would be loss of their right as adult citizens to spend what little money they have left as they see fit.
Oh, only “dole-bludgers” and unmarried mothers? Not blackfellas and useless cripples? Jeez, I’m disappointed. What about those old bastards who are no longer contributing something useful to society.
Be careful, baraholka. You might grow a heart.
“Foster and disability carers allowances? Training support stipends? Family Tax Benefit B?”
Yep, the whole lot. But why stop there, but?
This evil nut should be cracked with an even larger sledgehammer. A garnishee, by order of shock jock court, could be introduced on the paypackets of all the other “hard-core dysfunctionals” in the community that had escaped the initial net.
It is well known fact that by simply withdrawing the income source of those with an addiction, the problem just goes away.
There is also the not insignificant question of what uses income-managed people might think up for the nourishing fruit and Vegemite which they would presumably be legitimately able to purchase with their managed incomes.
PB @71
Easy on. My objective is to help the children of welfare-dependent families have a chance of getting some benefit from the welfare monies given to their carers. In hard-core dysfuntional cases this regularly does not happen. I think welfare quarantining could be part of a solution, but I am interested in counter-arguments. You have just supplied a tantrum. Please do better.
As Paul Norton pointed out, and I agree, it is very difficult to really know how children are being cared for unless you live in the house. It thus being in practice impossible to differentiate between hard-core dysfunction without case workers more or less becoming live-in nannies I suggest all unemployment payments, maybe single-parent payments be quarantined, where there are children.
PN @ 70
I agree that welfare quaranting severely impinges discretionary spending (50% in the case of The Intervention) and this will cheese most welfare recipients off. This, in practice, is probably why it is not implemented. Loses votes. Howard could reckon that he had no votes among the Aboriginal communities anyway, so no loss to him.
Issues of popularity aside, the question I would like to address is ‘would it improve the welfare of the children’. What do you reckon? I think it would have a chance of succeeding and it would definitely stop a lot of welfare being spent on Marijuana and Cigarettes. I think that’s worthwhie even by itself.
I am interested in your views.
Joe2 @72
I do not suggest welfare quaranting would solve addiction. I do not in general support garnishing of paypackets, but it is already done for cases of child support in thr case of divorced or seperated families, so why not in this case? The objective is child welfare in both cases.
I hope you can address the issue seriously in future posts. I would like to learn through discussion. What have you got to offer ?
The problem, Baraholka, is that Newstart payments aren’t designed to benefit children, they’re a payment to temporarily replace employment. It’s got nothing to do with parenting at all, and shouldn’t; just being jobless doesn’t necessarily make you a bad Mum or Dad.
There are very powerful statutory authorities at the State level charged with protecting the welfare of children—DoCS in NSW, Child Protection in QLD, DHS in Victoria—but there isn’t yet a social consensus that the State should use economic tools to protect children in the abstract.
It’d be a very big step, and if it were taken it’d be difficult not to apply the principle also to non-welfare recipient parents. Lots of parents aren’t very good at bringing up their children; if we’re going to do income management for childrens’ welfare, why not restrict the economic liberty of parents who earn their own wage?
I think what Baraholka is saying is that the welfare of children is a state responsibility, which is obvious when you think about it.
Bara, I’d suggest this goal could be achieved much more effectively and at less cost to the public purse by simply removing all children to public institutions, where they could be raised and trained. It worked in Sparta!
After all, it’s not in only in the families of welfare recipients that it’s difficult to tell whether children are properly cared for. Many kids in well-heeled homes can be the victims of abuse of various kinds. Clearly the only solution is for all children to be placed in state care.
Liam,
Reasonable points.
You are correct to point out that it is inappropriate to connect Newstart with Parenting directly, as I did. So scratch that. Let’s consider parenting payments.
Income management for divorced/seperated partners is already a societal fact and I think enjoys general support. The objective is child welfare, as it is in regard to welfare quarantining.
Your second para. about ‘societal consensus for economic tools’ etc. essentially about ‘popularity’. I agree the policy would be unpopular. But is it desirable? Would it increase teh welfare of children ? Would it harm children ? Irrespective of this it would prevent at least some welfare money being wasted on Marijuana and other drugs. Does that alone justify the policy?
I would not introduce Income management for waged parents unless negelct was proven.
Tim @76
Puttig kids in State care generally makes thing smuch worse.
If that was the best way to ensure Child Welfare I would support it.
But it isn’t. That’s why it should only be a last resort in cases of severe neglect or abuse.
Income management is quite different to the garnisheeing of wages for child support, Baraholka. For a start, in Australia, child supporting payments must be ordered by a court, and it’s recognition of support owed by one parent to another—the parent who receives child supporting payments can spend it on whatever s/he pleases.
The use of income management to ensure child welfare would be a massively blunt and inefficient tool. By the time neglect or abuse is “proven” it’s time for intervention by social worker or child removal to foster care, not enforcement of Centrelink payments at the grocery queue. It’d be remarkably good at fostering a sense of punishment and resentment, though, is that the plan?
No Government has any business deciding what and how families consume, regardless of the source of their income. If you’re arguing it does, and it’s a valid if extremely interventionist stance, then there’s no argument to limiting it simply to those parents receiving a State or Commonwealth payment—after all, one child’s welfare is as important as any other’s.
According to Tony Abbott on Sky’s Agenda today he said the world has been cooling for the past decade…hmmm.
Liam,
I agree that Income Management and Welfare Quarantining are not the same thing. However this does not mean that they do not share some common principles. One I have identified is Child Welfare.
As you say, garnishing of divorced parent’s wages is a recognition of support owed by one parent to another (for, among other things, child support). Similarly, welfare quarantining is a recognition that monies accepted for child support should be used for child support. I do not see this principle as controversial.
I agree that once proven neglect or abuse occurs its time for DOCS not Income Management.
The contention that welfare quarantining of parenting payments would foster a sense of punishment is very open to question, but I accept the possibility.
I agree it may foster a sense of resentment since one’s freedom of decision is constrained. If this resentment is directed against the government I would say ‘who cares’. People resent the government for all kinds of things such as paying tax. What is relevant is whether that sense of resentment is sourced from real injustice or mere disagreement or sense of inconvenience.
If feeings of resentment and punishment as a result of this policy were directed against the children, however, then the issue is serious. If these feelings were widespread and caused harm to children then the policy should not be implemented.
Liam, are you prepared to accept the possibility that feelings of punishment and resentment may not be widespread and not directed against children?
No Government has any business deciding what and how families consume, regardless of the source of their income
That is moot. Your assertion of this point indicates your opposition is philosophical rather than outcomes-based. I am arguing for the policy if I feel outcomes for children would be better as a result.
there’s no argument to limiting it simply to those parents receiving a State or Commonwealth payment
I think there is. Acceptance of monies from the government or any source indicates aceeptance of any conditions associated with accepting those monies. I say we make it a condition of child support payments that the money is spent on children, or at least a reasonable percentage of it is. Let’s say 50% as in The Intervention. It could be adjusted. The introduction of those conditions is justified by knowledge that welfare-dependent communities often fail to provide basic needs to children.
Of course, you are correct to note that wage-earners sometimes fail to provide basic needs also. I will argue that the rate of failure of provision is much less than those in welfare-dependent communities and hence routine Income Management of all wage earners is not justified.
If it is the case that such failure to provide basic needs is the same across waged and welfare-dependent households, then I agree there is no basis for introducing welfare quarantining.
Even if we accept that the atmosphere might have been cooling since 1998 (and there are good reasons not to accept this), the world has not been cooling. The atmosphere is just one component of the global climate system, and not the most important one in terms of capacity to store heat. I had more to say on this point here.
One potential issue with welfare quarantining is that the proportion of income spent on Rent is variable from household to household.
Let’s say one individual had the misfortune to be paying 50% of income on rent. A 50% welfare quarantine would leave the individual with no other money.
So rent costs must be considered when setting the quarantine amount.
Bara,
it wasn’t a tantrum. Rather a load of heavy sarcasm.
Its not up to government to tell welfare recipients or anybody else how to spend their money.
The disorderly poor has always been with us – Hogarth shows us how they (and the more industrious poor) behaved in the 18C.
But so have the orderly poor – two sides of the same coin.
It would help if Newstart was the equivalent of the pension. It would help if many single fathers no longer with woman and child stopped avoiding maintenance.
It would help if the life of the poor wasn’t so godammed bloody awful that some (probably not the majority)feel the need to get pissed or stoned all the time to blot out their miserable existence.
These are not problems to be solved by welfare quarantining. They can only be solved by a fair and equitable redistribution of our resouces.
Miranda’s baaaaaa-aaaaack with this fawning account.
Oh get me the bucket. And of course, plain-speaking, boyish (childish) politicians who are lacking in artifice are practically unknown in our Parliament! (Wilson Tuckey, anyone?)
Get me another bucket! And haven’t we all been there? Some prat comes out with a statement so unbelievable you’re left with the mental equivalent of a PC Fatal Error while your mouth hangs open or makes some wry expression as did Adler’s. And later on you always beat yourself up because now you’ve thought of what you should have said. Poor Adler, but my sympathies are limited, she did publish this waste of trees.
Please do not let this man within cooee of any policy which may affect women. Or humans generally.
Sorry, my mistake, poor Sarah M. But again, limited sympathy.
“and three willowy daughters further evidence of his female-friendly persona…”
So presumably, were his daughters more the shape of a General Sherman tree, this would be evidence of his female-unfriendly persona.
Miranda needs to take a permanent holiday.
I could make a crack about wooden-heads but I’ve already been a little too wry or something on this thread already, perhaps. (Angels/cripples/etc.)
And, of course, I, Miranda Devine, have oodles of evidence to support this very bald assertion, but being the professional that I am, I’ll desist from committing it to paper.
Paul @85
Its not up to government to tell welfare recipients or anybody else how to spend their money.
That is a moot point. Your assertion of it indicates your opposition to welfare quarantining is philosophical rather than predicated on likely outcomes. In my view ensuring that a reasonable proportion of child support payments is actually spent on basic needs for children is reasonable and likely to result in improved outcomes for children.
In fact the government curtails our spending in various areas already e.g I cannot buy guns without a licence and I cannot buy proscribed drugs. This is for social protection and health, outcomes similar to which I wish to pursue, namely protection of children, at least from deprivation of basic needs and promotion of their health.
The disorderly poor has always been with us
Agreed. Let’s try and stop their disorder from (inadvertently) harming their children where we can.
the life of the poor wasn’t so godammed bloody awful that some (probably not the majority)feel the need to get pissed or stoned all the time to blot out their miserable existence.
I think the causal factors work mostly work in the opposite direction than that you describe. Those with devestating life experiences e.g. alcoholic or abusive parents cope via drugs/alcohol leading to a spiral of increasing squalor.
These problems … can only be solved by a fair and equitable redistribution of our resouces.
Hard core family dysfunction cannot be solved by giving dysfunctional families more money. In fact the problem is made worse. The Baby Bonus caused increased domestic violence as addicted defactos bashed each other over who should get the cash. I’ll bet the same thing happens every pension day.
Families in these situations are incapable of budgeting. They are slaves to addiction or fried by years of drugs/booze/domestic violence or so devestated by their life experiences that they do not function effectively as parents. They do not even look after themselves adequately. They are not really capable of looking after their children.
Hence welfare quartining to at least give the kids a chance of getting something useful out of Mum/Dads parenting pension.
Maybe one woman. I mean, does she think Tony is some kind of toy or operating system; Tony v3.1, now with the praise and love of women.
So it’s not so much ‘he has friends that are female, he couldn’t possibly be sexist’ as ‘he has female children and a female wife, he couldn’t possible be sexist.’
Baraholka @ 90,
Guess I’m assuming that most recipient of child support payments are like the ones I know – responsible – its too easy to blame the poor if what was said about us was anywhere near true we’d all have those giant TVs by now wouldn’t we? – but we don’t.
Your comments. and I mean no offense here, smack far too much of the Howardian deserving poor – a very eladstic principle given whom it can exclude – versus the non-deserving poor, presumably those Hogarthian remnants who make the streets look untidy.
On Ms Adler, Helen wrote: Poor Adler, but my sympathies are limited, she did publish this waste of trees.
Ms Adler seems to be a powerful self-publicity machine, almost a shock-jockette? Coming soon, the memoirs of Mick Gatto.
She Stoops and Conquers.
Oh dear, an entire thread spitting venom at Tony Abbott.
Why are the left so full of foam-flecked hatred?
Hardly the way to a healthy psyche and happy life.
Cheer up lefties. You’re a long time dead, as my late father-in-law used to say.
Paul @ 92
With respect, I think you are importing your preconceptions about supporters of welfare quarantining onto my comments.
I am not making any identification of deserving/non-deserving poor. My interest in the topic is purely child welfare.
Dear PaulW @ 94, my life’s fine and I’m happy, thanks for your concern. I still think Mr Abbott is narrow minded sexist bigot whose views reflect the true awesomeness of his dizzying intellect. Oh and I’m not dead yet.
Baraholka – “The contention that welfare quarantining of parenting payments would foster a sense of punishment is very open to question, but I accept the possibility.
I agree it may foster a sense of resentment since one’s freedom of decision is constrained. If this resentment is directed against the government I would say ‘who cares’. People resent the government for all kinds of things such as paying tax. What is relevant is whether that sense of resentment is sourced from real injustice or mere disagreement or sense of inconvenience.”
I was raised in a single parent household. I’m the youngest of five kids, the male ‘parent’ left when I was 6 months old. I, and my siblings were raised on welfare.
You say ‘who cares’ if people resent their government, and yet you raise concerns about child welfare. Are you not at all concerned for the emotional welfare of children raised in a society where their parents are not trusted to care for them, and where resentment or mistrust for their government is a matter of no concern?
Though I grew up in poverty, I was raised in a safe environment, and was well-nourished. In fact my mother owned a child-care centre! Imagine it! A single mother being entrusted with other peoples children! I grew up in better circumstances than most of my peers. How do you propose to protect the welfare of children who’s parents aren’t the recipients of welfare? Or do you think that “hard-core dysfunctional” families only exist amongst welfare recipients?
I’m not sure how to respond to this kind of bizarre fantasy, Baraholka. It’s increasingly obvious you see welfare payments in and of themselves as bad, your argument about child welfare flowing from that concern.
The question remains—why not income-manage every recipient of Family Tax Benefit B? It’d be the only way to be sure no parent’s punching cones on the Government dollar.
And Baraholka, the assertion that Liam notes, seems to indicate that your wish to advocate for “welfare quarantining is philosophical rather than predicated on likely outcomes”. A charge, as seen from your own quote, made of others but apparently not applying to yourself.
It might come as quite a surprise to you that “addicted defactos” do not necessarily resort to violence when divvying up the Baby Bonus any more than godly married couples immediately rush to buy a plasma for their suburban dream home.
It might happen but it is absurd to suggest that A leads to B in every case and should be the basis of framing sensible government policy.
Joe2 @ 100
I do not assume that A leads to B in every case.
I do not assume that “addicted defactos” necessarily resort to violence.
My current support of welfare quarantining (subject to good counter-views) is not philosphical but based on predicted outcomes of child welfare.
Violence in dysfunctional families around Baby Bonus is not a bizarre fanatasy. It is an observed outcome by people familiar with welfare-dependent communities such as my own wife who has worked in this area.
What is your actual objection to welfare quarantining ? I am interested in your views.
Liam @99
I do not see welfare payments as of themselves bad. I am in favour of welfare payments.
I also note a common occurrence of hard-core dysfunction in which child support payments are fundamentally wasted on grog, Marijuana and ciggies with no real effort to provide care to the children beyond that which incidentally follows from the carer supplying him/herself with shelter, pizza, addictive substances and breakfast cereal (i.e. the carer is not actually caring for the child, but the child incidentally benefits in some way). Do you accept the existence of this syndrome? What is your proposed solution?
If it is demonstrated that recipients of Family Benefit Part B also demonstrate significant neglect in providing basic needs to their children I would advocate welfare quarantining of that too.
FB @98
As I noted in my original post on ‘resentment’, if that resentment flows through into actual harm for the children then I would not implement welfare quarantining.
I do not regard all single parents as negilgent or incapable, but I do note teh existence of a syndrome described above. Do you acknowledge the existence of that syndrome? Could welfare quarantining be part of the solution ?
As for child neglect amongst the waged, if the incidence of neglect matches that of those in welfare-dependent communities I would advocate welfare quarantining for the waged also.
“I do not assume that A leads to B in every case.
I do not assume that “addicted defactos” necessarily resort to violence.”
Then why then, Baraholka, would you have the majority of those who use the Baby Bonus in what may be considered a responsible manner subjected to the same intense management as those with severe child rearing issues?
Apart from the bureaucratic nightmare and expense it would entail , as I tried to point out to you further back, it is a bit like ‘hitting a nut with a sledgehammer’.
Very much nut sledgehammer, joe2
There is no doubt that some families with parent/carer(s) in the grip of chronic addiction wherein their children are suffering terribly as a result, in a more perfect world these families should be closely managed in every aspect incl. accommodation, financially, counseling, health, rehab options until stabilised or ongoing.
However this category of extreme family dysfunctional should be only (and often already are) identified by DOC’s workers/schools etc and have management plans and importantly they should have access to any appeals process.
As to the many other families which Baraholka is also concerned about, ie. where the kids are being cared for, in a less than ideal way, these kids would be helped by providing extra funding through the school system as already happens in a more ad hoc fashion.
ie. there are many schools currently which run ‘breakfast programs’ for hungry students, this should be extended to lunch and early dinner programs ie. all ‘Before and After School Care’ fees and ‘Vacation Care’ fees subsidised/free if the family has been identified as in need, by the school exec/social workers etc.
I’d have a mini-bus picking them up at 6am and dropping them home at 6pm – fed and clothed, exercised and educated, health checked and so on. And likewise programs to pay for sports fees, activities and again mini buses to pick them up on the weekend and so on.
These type of programs are cheap as chips compared to having kids as early participants in the criminal justice system or as long term unemployed. These type of programs also don’t require massive bureaucratic oversight rather just an extension of already ‘in place’ community services and local community workers etc.
That is if you are interested in helping kids at risk rather than just broad-brush “managing” millions of families who are eligible for all sorts of centrelink payments.
I’d have a mini-bus picking them up at 6am and dropping them home at 6pm – fed and clothed, exercised and educated, health checked and so on. And likewise programs to pay for sports fees, activities and again mini buses to pick them up on the weekend and so on.
These type of programs are cheap as chips compared to having kids as early participants in the criminal justice system or as long term unemployed.
I heart you Jo.
Jo @103
Thanks for your informed comments.
I was under the impression that DOCS, despite its large numbers of dedicated staff, simply cannot handle its workload despite best efforts. You seem to agree. As you said:
in a more perfect world these [chronically needy] families should be closely managed in every aspect incl. … financially …
As you say, DOCS manages all they can insofar as they are aware of such cases and have the resoources. Would you hazard a guess as to how many needy families are covered in this way and ergo, how many are missed ?
Each missed family represents one or more suffering children. How many children are we prepared to abandon to their fate? If welfare quarantining can help it must be seriously considered, indeed, would require compelling reasons to ignore.
In addition to these you identify as ‘chronic need’, you identify a whole additional category of families in which children are routinely uncared for and whose needs are not being addressed except in an ad-hoc way through schools. To my thinking that’s just another way of saying ‘chronic need’.
I am in favour of your proposals to fund dinner clubs etc. but could not welfare quarantining also be part of the solution ?
What are the actual arguments against welfare quarantining ?
To me it seems organisationally simple to set up a system of of redeemable vouchers and of course it is already implemented in The Intervention. Has the program led to better outomes for children ? What problems has welfare quarantining caused in The Intervention?
Welfare quarantining also has the benefit of universality. It does not rely on an overworked department identifying and managing cases (not that I am opposed to Departmental Management). All families receiving child support get the voucher in the mail. Its a guaranteed hit unlike DOCS Managemment which only hits a certain percentage of the MOST needy cases.
I guess the vouchers could be sold or traded by recipients instead of redeemed. This may leave some families worse off if they receive back less than their face value in cash, but I dunno, what dealer really wants to be paid in bags of groceries for Marijuana? I think that particular risk is minimal.
I guess the vouchers could also be lost. That would be a major disaster for the family affected. What is the loss rate of vouchers issued by The Intervention ?
I suppose there is also the issue of mail. Not everyone has a mailing address. The vouchers would need to be somehow issued or credited electronically as payments currently are. This suggests the need for the development of the system to administer that. Expensive. But maybe worth it. What’s a child worth ?
My interest, since you ask Jo, is not particularly to ‘broad-brush manage’ anybody, but to better assist those many many children who you, who appears to be knowledgable in the matter agree, are now at the mercy of devestated parents unable to properly care for themselves let alone their children.
Some here, including you, have characterised welfare quarantining as a sledgehammer approach to a nut-cracking problem. May I suggest that you have severely understated the issue?
The problem of inadequate care for children is not some insignificant walnut-sized problem we can just dispose of like a snack. I have met several familiar with the welfare-dependent communities of Western Sydney and they tell me the problem is both massive and near intractable. Maybe they are exagerrating. But your comments seem to confirm that the problem is a serious social issue which cannot be addressed using current approaches.
Sometimes sledgehammers are needed.
Not directed at the families, but at the problems they find themselves in.
In regard to Category
joe2 @ 102
I have addressed that question earlier in the thread see me@67 and others further down.
Applying welfare quarantining to all parenting payments would also remove the problem of stigmatization. Let’s say the policy was ‘only give vouchers to families in which there is proven neglect’. That way everyone holdinga voucher might as well carry around a placard saying ‘I’ve neglected my children’. Could lead to some nastiness directed towrd them.
Making the policy universal avoids stigmatization.
Baraholka with respect, I don’t think you appreciate just how many families across the nation receive Centrelink benefits or part benefits. Approx. 400,000 families receive the parenting parent with some 600,000 families receiving Parenting Payment B. (ABS stats 2006)
The percentage of children ‘at risk’ in the ways being discussed, does not in any way reflect a requirement for the introduction of mandatory welfare quarantining across the entire country. To suggest otherwise is just… crazy talk.
I think you’ve gone off on a bit of a head trip on this whole concept… what happens to the vouchers when lost in mail !?.. etc .
Have a read of some ABS stats. below in relation to single parent families who are eligible for the Parenting Payment and Parenting Payment B.
These large percentages of single mothers and fathers either in part-time work, studying or looking should give you pause to question your assumptions firstly, and this is before you remove the other big percentage of single parents who do not work especially those with young children, but would not be considered as ‘families at risk’. Of course ‘families at risk’ would of course include partnered families.
I’m quoting easily found ABS data on workplace participation and studying rates amongst single parents to provide some contrast to the picture of welfare-dependent families who have multiple accompanying issues such as drug and alcohol, abuse, mental illness, intergenerational welfare dependence/criminal justice histories etc.
I’ll dig around to see what I can find in relation to pop. data on ‘families at risk’ generally, meanwhile:
The above two very bald stats. (equating to very approx. less than 3% of total child pop. affected due to the child pop. figures counting children aged 0-14, whereas the notification data pertains to children aged 0-17) should not mean of course, that there aren’t huge ongoing problems for children whose neglect isn’t reported and/or who are living less than ideal lives, or to ignore what a horrible stat. that is, but rather to just provide some perspective overall.
I wish I could access this 2007 paper – here is part of the abstract:
I wonder if mini-buses get a nod…and thanks Helen – heart you back.
You’re missing the point Baraholka.
If you have an abusive or neglectful parent, and you quarantine their Centrelink payments, all you get is an abusive or neglectful parent who happens to have a grocery voucher. It affects absolutely nothing in regards to their capacity to parent.
Hiya Liam,
I do not suggest that welfare quarantining will make people better paranets.
I do suggest that welfare quarantining may be effective in directing basic needs to children, subject to counter-argument.
In many posts the anti-welfare quaranting team such as yourself have not addressed this issue, which is the actually THE substantive issue of the topic.
Jo at least provided an alternative solution, but her main argument seems to be ‘the problem is not that big’.
In fact I ( a putative proponent of welfare quarantining) am the only one so far to have provided any counter-argument to welfare quarantining except for
1) the philospohical objection that government should not be entitled to demand how any pension payment is spent, which ignores the point under discussion wghich is cild neglect.
2) Bureaucratic diffulty, again almost irrelevant to the issue of child neglect.
Jo @ 107, 108
Jo, if the problem of child neglect is very small, then this may indicate that NO solution is required to the issue including your own solution of funded dinner clubs, mini-buses to sports etc (which I support in principle).
Is teh issue of child neglect big enough to warrant a response or not ?
Baraholka – I’m not sure you got the point about just how many NOT AT RISK AT ALL OF ANYTHING, OTHER THAN BEING ALIVE*** families would have their benefits quarantined?
That is, the overwhelming majority of families in cities and towns from one end of the country to the other who receive some form of benefit.
So even discounting Liam’s point, which I don’t, the problem itself doesn’t warrant a nation-wide collective solution such as quarantining. If you want to come back with some data to suggest otherwise, fine, but so far, you’ve presented absolutely nothing in form of evidence or data, other than your own firmly held opinions.
I also don’t why, or because I pointed out the um, gaping holes in your nation-wide welfare quarantining position, that you’d then suggest that I would think the problem of child neglect is then too small to worry about…huh?
I posted some off-the-top-of-head programs and I’m sure there are more which others could chip in with, and myself, based on more preventative measures and using ‘in place’ local community services etc.
And I do actually think that child welfare/social workers should be able to recommend welfare quarantining and other measures for families where they consider this would be of benefit. If they can recommend the removal of the children and do, then ‘welfare quarantining’ is not very far up the ladder of control methods, and would hopefully be part of a bigger management plan. And families would retain rights to appeal etc. of course.
Anyway I’m outtie.
***obviously families whose income is derived solely from Govt benefit are living with enormous pressures re: very low income and all the social/educational/health outcomes this entails – but this just doesn’t translate into every parent receiving benefits being a crank-head!
“I do suggest that welfare quarantining may be effective in directing basic needs to children, subject to counter-argument.
In many posts the anti-welfare quaranting team such as yourself have not addressed this issue, which is the actually THE substantive issue of the topic.”
Welfare quarantining is essentially the social welfare equivalent of ‘collective punishment’, for that reason alone it should be disregarded.
Aside from that, it simply wouldn’t work to address this “syndrome” you speak of. You identify substance abuse as a major part of the problem, but in your single-minded advocacy for punitive approach to ALL welfare recipients, you seem to ignore that people with addictions need treatment, not punishment. Without treatment they will simply find a way to abuse the system that is put in place, and there will always, ALWAYS be someone willing to take advantage of such people. For example, if someone gets $50.00 worth of grocery vouchers, or indeed $50.00 in groceries, if they are desperate to purchase drugs, alcohol, cigarettes etc, they will, in desperation, sell what they have at a devalued price. To be blunt, that’s not even the worse case scenario in terms of how ugly things can get when people are placed in desperate situations, and if you think the kids are less ‘at risk’ in such circumstances, then you are simply being naive.
So with welfare quarantining you:
a) punish those welfare recipients who despite their poverty are still putting put food on the table for their kids [the majority].
b) ignore the root causes of the problem.
c) create resentment, and further disenfranchise an already marginalised section of the community.
d) potentially make the welfare recipient, and their children even more vulnerable than they were before.
e) fail to solve the problem.
A better solution?
Apart from what Jo suggested in terms of practical assistance directly to the children. Perhaps decent funding for addiction treatment centres? Better resourcing for community services?
BTW: earlier you said that to make such a scheme less stigmatising, you support welfare quarantining for the ‘waged’ as well – what do you mean?
He means quarantining the Family Benefit part A and B, FB – that’ll make all those abusive parents in Toorak sit up, what!
Exactly. Live by the conservative authoritarian backwards-looking patriarch, die by the conservative authoritarian backwards-looking patriarch.
Was going to post this the other night Furious, with some similar points to yours:
Baraholka, if you really wanted to o’night put dollars back into some families purses, decriminalising marijuana would go a long way in the big states which have not done this. Treating pot as a health problem in exactly the same way as tobacco and alcohol are treated, and removing it from the criminal justice system would kill the black market to a very large degree.
Of course a minority will just spend more on other drug habits, but for the biggest majority of ‘users’ whose long term regular habits do not extend past fags, pot and grog, this would be a significant family budgetery measure whether low income via working or on benefits.
And because I advocate decriminalisation doesn’t mean I don’t therefore support a whole raft of D&A programs… au contraire – rehab. for instance should always have excess places available, rather than the opposite, which is often the case under our supposedly ‘tough on drugs’ strategy.
I remember seeing this doco years ago, where some British city had some program where the council would deliver drugs of dependency to registered users and as the social worker told it – “in return he would counsel them one-to-one on a weekly basis about the overall vacuousness of their lives as currently lived etc.”. I rather liked this approach.
And subsidising on-going nicotine replacement therapy for people with health cards should be on the list too.
This is all wrong. Eucharist comes after the pentitential rite and the homily.
Jo @ 112
Hiya. Thanks again for your informed comments.
I note your in-principle support for targeted welfare quarantining.
I take this to indicate that you, like me, believe that welfare quaranting
can be an effective means of alleviating child neglect, will not cause
problems for children so affected and is not a punishment.
The only real point left to discuss between us is whether or not welfare quarantining
should only be applied in a targeted manner or, as I have suggested to all
recipients of parenting payments. Let me call this ‘universal welfare quarantining.
I agree that universal welfare quantining would affect a huge number of people.
Consequently it can only be countenanced if the problem of child neglect is
widespread.
It was on this very point, the scope of the problem of child neglect,
that I introduced the topic. I have heard anecdotal evidence that the problem
is, indeed, widespread. You contend that the problem of child neglect
is comparatively small.
Your data for this is the ratio of substantiated child abuse cases to the
total population of persons receiving parenting payments. The figure you end up
with is 3% a figure you say is too small to warrant universal welfare
quarantining.
While I accept your general approach I think that it certainly understates
the scope of the problem. Child neglect can only be substatiated if
reported. What is the rate of reporting to actual cases of neglect ?
Are only half of cases reported, one-third, one-fifth? Less?
Secondly, the population of persons receiving parenting payments has been
inflated by the pork-barelling tendencies of the Howard Govts, not yet
corrected by Rudd. While 1 million persons may be receiving parenting payments,
there is a much smaller percentage who really need it. I will contend, unless
other data is presented that the rate of failure to provide food and basic
necessities to children is inversely correlated to income.
It is the problem of failure to provide food and basic necessities that
welfare quaranting can address. Therefore to apply the DOCS neglect figure
to that population of 1 million persons understates the problem. In particular,
it understates the problem in specific communities. The rate
of in (e.g Western sydney, West Dubbo) will be several multiples of that
figure of 3% you have derived.
Further, I put it to you that the percentage figure you derive actually conceals
more than it reveals. The DOCS figure says that 30,500 child abuse cases
were substantiated. That’s 30,500 wrecked lives heroically assuming ALL cases are
reported. The fact that 30,500 constitutes 3% of some other figure is all but
meaningless. I think we are better served, and serve our nation’s children
better in this issue by concentrating on absolute numbers, not percentages.
How many children in Australia are being neglected ?
30,500 is just the start.
In other words, by applying a targeted WQ approach you will miss
helping an unknown number of children.
I would sooner help them all if possible.
Jo, I agree with you that given the prevalence of middle-class welfare
there will be hundreds of thousands of families caring for their family
perfectly well who will be subject to welfare quarantining. My family
would be an example. By introducing WQ these families will receive a
proportion of their payments as a credit at Coles/Woolies whatever
instead of in cash. I hardly see this as a terrible fate.
I suggest that for well-off middle-class welfare recipients the fact they have a credit balance at Coles/Woolies
will be of zero concern. They will not give a stuff.
But yes, many will be annoyed, many more resentful. I think any government
that brings in universal WQ will lose the next election. I do not think, however,
that this resentment will lead to violence against children and neither I think
do you, otherwise you would not suggest it for targeted cases. It is those
targeted cases that would actually be more likely to express resentment
through rage since, as you note, these are likely to be the most devestated
individuals with most horrific life experiences, most exposure to violence
and abuse perpetrated against themselves, higher exposure to the criminal justice
system etc.
Since the families you would support targeted WQ for are the most likely
to have less well developed coping and negotiation skills and yet, by
inference, you do not predict beatings of children as a result of WQ
directed toward them, I assume you agree that resentment against WQ
will not cause harm to children. Just government electoral prospects.
To sum up, universal WQ helps all children at risk and (unlike targeted WQ)
misses none without negative impact on the children. It appeals as
the most effective solution to the issue in the absence of real
counter-argument, none which has been found so far.
Returning to universality of WQ I also give this model my contingent support
because it avoids the problem of stigmatization. Do you feel that WQ
would create a stigmatization issue and do you feel this can be mitigated
by applying the policy universally ?
If stigmatization is not an issue, then the option of targeting WQ becomes
more viable.
How then to target WQ ? Waiting for proven abuse is not a sensible option
in my opinion because it leaves all unreported children to their miserable
fate.
An alternative would be to target communites where there is known high incidence
of abuse or neglect which was the rationale for The Intervention. In my
opinion geographical targeting of this kind e..g to Western Sydney or Blacktown
or somesuch is ineffective because people simply move to other areas.
As I see it, this leaves universal WQ as the most effective, best WQ
solution.
Underpinning my argument are the following contentions:
1) The rate of reporting of child abuse severlely understates
its real extent
2) The issue of child neglect is extremely serious and hence
universal solutions for the problem are justified even if relatively
low proportions of the total population of children are affected.
3) The issue of child neglect is clustered in welfare-dependent
communities. Here the rate of child neglect is many multiples
the national average. It is inhumane and unjust to abandon
communities like these to their fate.
In regard to alternative solutions such as dinner clubs etc.
I support these in-principle too. They have the additional
benefit of being more grass-roots oriented as they require
on the ground volunteers, staff and organisers to operate. They
would also probably provide a more nutritious meal than
that purchased/prepared by many welfare-dependent households.
One question regarding dinner clubs: Will they be universal? Who gets a free dinner ? Who misses out ?
I look forward to any further contributions you may have, Jo.
Regards,
Barra.
BTw I didn’t get what you were driving at in regard to the proportion of single parents
who work/study. What were you getting at there ?
Baraholka, the format of your “comment” indicates that you have
a. cut and pasted a very long essay into the comments field, which is considered bad netiquette and is against the comments policy of most group blogs:
or
b. Are attempting to put your thoughts into modern blank verse, very, very badly.
If I were the originator of this thread I’d be deleting your disingenuous screed and plonking you in moderation, but I’m not them. Fortunate for you.
FB @ 112
Thanks for taking the time to express a counter-WQ case.
I don’t find your argument very strong.
You may think WQ is ‘collective punishment’ but there is no need to take that view. What is wrong with asking the recipients of parenting payment to care about their less-well-coping neignbours and the their children suffering from neglect ? I know that I’m not neglecting my children but I am happy to accept the minor inconvenience of a credit balance at Coles if it helps some kid somewhere get some tucker.
The philosophy is ‘helping children’ not ‘punishing parents’. The children I am worried about have parents who cannot care for them, and I do not blame the parents for this.
Can I suggest you thinking of this is heavily coloured by western notions of the primacy of the individual ? I am advocating a more community-oriented approach. For other reasons in favour of universality of WQ see above.
Please note my contingent advocacy of WQ does not mean I say that other approaches apart from WQ cannot be used. Indeed if you have a better approach than WQ let’s hear it.
With respect, I think your coments in regard to addiction are overstated. Heroin addicts will behave the way you describe, but not those self-medicating through alcohol or ciggies.
I note also you do not address the point of whether or not WQ will actually succeed in alleviating child neglect, except tangentially via your addiction comments.
Jo, the most informed commentator on WQ to date supports WQ targeted to the MOST addicted and devestated cases. What would you say to her ? Plainly Jo also does not construe WQ as punishment and believes WQ can help.
In relation to resentment, see above. I do not think it is an issue. Only for governments seeking re-election.
In regard to root causes, yes let’s go after those too. If dinner clubs can help let’s have a few.
Jo @ 115
I have an open mind in relation to de-criminalisation of marijuana.
On a possibly related point, my wife taught in a ‘behavior problems’ school where most of the kids had a nicotine addiction.
The school gave the kids a ciggy break every so often. Without it they could not concentrate. Of course they had a nicotine replacement program too.
Helen @ 118
On what basis do you say that my post @117 is disingenuous ?