" Intervention " or " Justice " ?

The question seems to be - " Does a government have the right to manage the financial affairs of it's citizens when they are deemed to be out of control ? "    Many people argue that we are each responsible for the way we choose to live, but do we have the right to force those dependent upon us to share that same fate ?

Put bluntly, the Federal intervention programme was caused by concern for what was happening in our remote Aboriginal communities.   Alcoholism was rife and as a result many Aboriginal children were not getting regular meals or attending school.   There seemed to be a danger that we would raise a " lost generation ", lacking the tools with which to sustain themselves and destined to repeat the lifestyle of their elders.

The intervention took the form of isolating a percentage of social security income into a special account which could only be accessed for approved spending.    This money could not be used to buy tobacco or alcohol, but was quarantined for the purchase of food, clothing and household essentials.   It simply reduced the amount of discretionary spending available to ensure the availability of the basics.

The fact that this scheme was initially used to manage the lifestyle of Aboriginal people caused accusations that it was " racist ".    There have been calls for it to be extended nation wide and applied to all citizens - of all colour.     That again raises the question of whether any government has the right to manage it's citizens financial affairs, and yet that has been an acceptable fact of life for most of the last century.

If a person suffering Dementia enters an institution, the government watchdog takes control of their affairs, as also happens when a person is certified with a  mental illness.   Alcoholism is a form of mental illness.  Under it's influence the victim loses spending control and brings disaster into the lives of any children depending on that person for survival.    It may be impossible to alter the lifestyle of the alcoholic, but it is possible to repair some of the harm done to dependent children - and that seems to be the aim of this legislation.

One of the outcomes of alcoholism is a disregard for the obligation of having children attend school regularly. Education is the key to a better life and withholding money can be a decisive factor in gaining compliance. In some cases, it is the only way to ensure that children of deprived households get at least a basic education.

Both sides of politics seem to be in rare agreement with the principles involved.  We can only hope that this question is not mired in accusations of racism and that it is implemented in a sensible manner to help those of any race or creed - who have fallen through the cracks.      Justice and need are are twin issues !