[Commpsych] FW: [PHM-Oz] Please oppose welfare reform bill

Mon Mar 29 11:32:35 WST 2010

________________________________

From: phm-oz-bounces at phmoz.org on behalf of John Boffa
Sent: Fri 26/03/2010 6:14 PM
To: Peter Sainsbury; 'Bill Genat'; deborah at gleeson.net; phm-oz at phmoz.org
Cc: Donna Ahchee; Stephanie Bell
Subject: Re: [PHM-Oz] Please oppose welfare reform bill

Hi All,

I think there is a big difference between the denial of fundamental human rights as enshrined in the UN charter and the denial of what I think are better called privileges. Fundamental rights inlcude the freedom from hunger, poverty, homlessnesss and all forms of racial discrimination etc. Priveleges are the freedoms to choose to do this or that - the high court has just made this clear in a recent decision in regards to the privilege (not right) to be able to buy alcohol. The government is not taking away the net value of the welfare payments to people and is therefore meeting its obligation to ensure unemployed people are free from hunger, can rent a house for shelter etc etc. It is only the form the payment comes in that is being altered.  There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to get welfare payments as 100% cash - many people in many countries get nothing and their fundamental human rights are being denied in this area. This is not the case here. No internationl treaties talk about a right to "100% cash" welfare payments and the government will argue that income management is designed to ensure that welfare funds are better spent on things such as food and housing etc - it is deisgned to ensure that these fudnamental rights are better protected rather than money being spent on alcohol. There is some truth to this argument although this alone cannot jusitfy income quarintining 

 Aboriginal people in the NT are not "standing on a rock", but stuck between that rock and a very hard place. 40,000 Aboriginal people (and not just the 15,000 on welfare income who are currently being income managed), and have no access whatsoever to the RDA or the NT's Anti Discrimination Act, let alone things such as the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. What I find hard to understand is that many people, who did little at the time of its imposition and its ongoing carriage, are now carrying on like it's the end of the world ... for the rest of the nation. People like Eva Cox have entered the debate for the first time and have accused some of the AMSANT policy staff of being "naïve" and selling out. This is a very heated debate.

The reality is this: those 40,000 ...  and an extra 600 new kids a year ... are being born into a situation that no one else in the country has to endure, ie, lack of access to the RDA etc. Non-passage of this Bill will extend that out indefinitely. I estimated 18 months, but there's no way of being certain of that. What is certain is that passage of the Bill will remove compulsory income management for a significant number of people, and at least allow some access to elements of the RDA, AD Act, SSAT etc.

Then the argument can really start happening about the extension of the social welfare provisions to other Territorians and the rest of the country (which in the latter case starts in 2012). My view is that it will probably collapse under its own weight and then be resticted to people as a last resort who have not enageged with case management, treatment services etc - the Cape York model. ACOSS estimates, at $4400 per person under management, the cost of 20,000 people in the NT will be $88 million a year. Let's say the rest of the country only cop income management at half the rate of the NT: that means 1 million people, costing around $4.5 billion a year to manage incomes. It's obviously not that well thought out, more so when it starts hitting people in the electorates of who ever is in power, and starts hitting middle class families-which it will. Then the argument will really hit home, as opposed to the current situation where some on the basis of pure rather than applied principles  attack the notion of just restoring the RDA in the NT, while 40,000  Aboriginal people languish. This reminds me of the Kantian postion on ethics - it is always wrong to lie even if telling a lie would stop someone from murdering someone. Ethics need to be teleological and not just deontological in my view althoug I am fully aware of the debate on this issue

This is a case of double jeopardy for Aboriginal people.

As it currently stands, Aboriginal people in the NT are basically being asked to be sacrificed to save the lifestyles of whitefellas in the rest of the country. 

Sound familiar??

And with an indefinite suspension of the RDA etc, the kids being born into this reality-who have no say in it at all-will be growing up into a real "living museum": the only Australians who are excluded from the RDA. This is much more unacceptable in my view than income quarintining, equitably applied to all citizens across the nation

regards,

John

John Boffa
Public Health Medical Officer
Central Australian Aboriginal Congress
25 Gap Rd Alice Springs NT, 0870
Ph:       08 89514401
Mobile:  0418 812141
Fax:      08 89514440

________________________________

From: Peter Sainsbury [mailto:sainsburyp at email.cs.nsw.gov.au] 
Sent: Saturday, 20 March 2010 2:14 PM
To: John Boffa; 'Bill Genat'; deborah at gleeson.net; phm-oz at phmoz.org
Subject: RE: [PHM-Oz] Please oppose welfare reform bill

Dear all,

I'd just to say that I do not share the view that the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act is more important than the Welfare Reform issue. I regard both as equally obnoxious, for pretty much identical reasons. That is, that they both undermine fundamental human rights and the rights of Australian citizenship. Income management or income quarantining or whatever you want to call it may or may not be effective in achieving certain policy goals (that is an empirical question that remains unanswered, although I personally have strong reservations about its likely effectiveness, not to mention its cost effectiveness) but whatever its effectiveness the end does not justify the means when basic rights associated with Australian citizenship are removed. Compulsory income management for whole groups of people (as determined by certain sociodemographic criteria such as where you live or your racial background) returns social welfare to the nineteenth century when it was regarded as a contingent privilege handed out by government, charities or philanthropists to individuals or families where were (regarded as) not competent to manage their own affairs, rather than a right of citizenship, a responsibility and an obligation of society at large, effected through elected governments, to ensure that all citizens have the opportunities and resources to maintain a basic acceptable standard of living and involvement in society.

I could say more but I'm sure my main point is clear. I would, however, like to make clear that like everyone else on this listserver, I'm sure, I want something to be done about poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, child abuse etc. etc. but I do not believe that compulsory income management is an acceptable way to effect the improvements desired. And I do believe that ethically acceptable ways of achieving these highly desirable social goals can be devised and implemented. 

I have been involved in party politics and social and public health advocacy long enough to know that goal achievement is nearly always dependent on compromise when it comes to parliamentary process and policy progress.  On certain issues of principle, however, one has to stand on a, rock and refuse to budge. To my mind these two issues are two such  rocks (in fact they are the same rock) and I regard it as extremely regrettable that people like us should be arguing the toss about relative importance of the RDA for Aboriginal people in the NT and the welfare rules for non-Aboriginal people across Australia. Citizenship is at stake here.

Regards to all,

Peter

******************
Peter Sainsbury
Director, SSWAHS Population Health 
Tel. (02) 9612 0706

From: phm-oz-bounces at phmoz.org [mailto:phm-oz-bounces at phmoz.org] On Behalf Of John Boffa
Sent: Friday, 19 March 2010 6:56 PM
To: Bill Genat; deborah at gleeson.net; phm-oz at phmoz.org
Subject: Re: [PHM-Oz] Please oppose welfare reform bill

Hi Bill,

I think the attached letter to Macklin from AMSANT, CLC, NLC and NAAJA gives you the wording youa re looking four. I think the Greens stand on this is unprincipled in that they are prepared to allow the Aboriginal people of the NT to be the sacrificial lambs on the income quarantining alter. They are clear in their view that if the RDA has to remain suspended for Aboriginal people in the NT so that they can stop income quarantining applying to non Aboriginal people then this is what they think needs to happen. AMSANT and other organsations have a big problem with this position and if everyone had of been working towards the amendment suggested in this letter we may have got somewhere. At the moment the amendment has not been made and if the legilsation goes though in its current from it allows the positive discrimintation aspects of the NTER to take precedence over the RDA so they cannot be subject to legal challenge. The more letters opposing this the better

regards,

John

John Boffa

Public Health Medical Officer

Central Australian Aboriginal Congress

25 Gap Rd Alice Springs NT, 0870

Ph:       08 89514401

Mobile:  0418 812141

Fax:      08 89514440

________________________________

From: Bill Genat [mailto:bgenat at unimelb.edu.au] 
Sent: Friday, 19 March 2010 4:37 PM
To: John Boffa; deborah at gleeson.net; phm-oz at phmoz.org
Subject: Re: [PHM-Oz] Please oppose welfare reform bill

Hi John,

Can you please circulate a revised proforma letter that we can send to the Senators advocating the position you have outlined.

Cheers Bill
____________________________________
Dr. Bill Genat
Centre for Health and Society 
Onemda VicHealth Koori Health Unit
Melbourne School of Population Health
University of Melbourne
ph: (03) 8344 9375

On 19/03/10 3:59 PM, "John Boffa" <john.boffa at caac.org.au> wrote:

Hi Deborah,

I have discussed with AMSANT and they have confirmed my assesment in my earlier email. It would be very useful if we were getting support for this joint position from the leading NT Aboriginal organsaitions if possible. If this bill does not pass the RDA will remain suspended for at least another 18 months and this is unacceptable. The strategy of pursuing the single critical amendment is we think the best and most politically achievable startegy as it is the suspension of the RDA that is the major evil here not income quarantining in the significantly reformed manner that is now being proposed in the bill. 

regards,

John

John Boffa
Public Health Medical Officer
Central Australian Aboriginal Congress
25 Gap Rd Alice Springs NT, 0870
Ph:       08 89514401
Mobile:  0418 812141
Fax:      08 89514440

________________________________

From: phm-oz-bounces at phmoz.org [mailto:phm-oz-bounces at phmoz.org] On Behalf Of Deborah Gleeson
Sent: Friday, 19 March 2010 11:53 AM
To: phm-oz at phmoz.org
Subject: [PHM-Oz] Please oppose welfare reform bill

Dear All,

The draconian disempowering Welfare Quarantining associated with the NT Intervention is about to be extended to welfare recipients around the country (included in legislation intended to also subvert the Racial Discrimination Act). Please oppose the proposed bill, 'Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of the Racial Discrimination Act' by writing to Senators. 

For detailed information about the issue see the submission by Prof. Jon Altman from ANU: 
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/soc_sec_welfare_reform_racial_discrim_09/submissions/sub50.pdf 

Further submissions can be read at: 

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/soc_sec_welfare_reform_racial_discrim_09/submissions/sublist.htm

Please write to your local Liberal Senators requesting they oppose the extension of administrative regulation of Aboriginal (and other welfare recipient's) lives at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/index.asp?sort=state

Regards
Deb

Sample Letter:

		Dear Senator

		I am writing to ask you to  vote against the bill, 'Welfare Reform and
		Reinstatement of the Racial  Discrimination Act' when it comes into the
		Senate next  week.
		Amendments to the bill will need to be negotiated in the light of  the report
		from Australian Indigenous Doctors Association, the Menzies  School of Health
		Research and from other health professionals  expressing grave concern
		regarding the Intervention as failing to  provide improvements to health and
		in some instances as working against  improvements to health.
		It is my hope that you will be able to play a  major role in negotiating
		amendments that will be supported by  Aboriginal people and service providers
		working together with  government. It is also hoped that a full reinstatement
		of the RDA will  be a further outcome of those amendments.

		Kinds   regards,

		Name

		Address

ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity <http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=o2J5017l006852&from=john.boffa@caac.org.au> 

________________________________

_______________________________________________
PHM-Oz mailing list
PHM-Oz at phmoz.org
http://phmoz.org/mailman/listinfo/phm-oz_phmoz.org

_____________________________________________________________________ 
This email has been scanned for the Sydney South West Area Health Service by the MessageLabs Email Security System. SSWAHS regularly monitors emails and attachments to ensure compliance with the NSW Government's Electronic Messaging Policy.

ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity <http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=o2J7tcq6023176&from=john.boffa@caac.org.au> 

ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity <http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=o2Q7E51i005084&from=john.boffa@caac.org.au> 

This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.curtin.edu.au/pipermail/commpsych/attachments/20100329/16767efb/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT1781756.txt
Url: http://lists.curtin.edu.au/pipermail/commpsych/attachments/20100329/16767efb/attachment-0001.txt 