From what I can make of the Family Responsibilities Commission it is not designed as a punitive model, there are no fines and quarantining is one option open to it along with referalls to support agencies (with the threat if quarantining if support is not accessed). However I was most disturbed to hear the word “punishment” used by the newly appointed head of the commission in a media interview.

The Mexican model is a defacto punishment, if a person does not conform to the rules they are deprived of income. Those most in need of support will receive less than those who have got their lives together. - a situation than does not occur in the Cape York model.

I have concerns about the Family Responsibilities commission, in particular the circumstances that can see a person reported to the commission. One is non-attendance at school which is more likely to be an innapropriate schooling environment rather than the parents fault. But the big one is a person can end up before the commission for being convicted of an offense by a magistrate - no specificity as to what sort of charge. Under the present law a person can end up before the commission because of a littering or speeding fine even if they are good parents.

However, theoretically, the commission is dominated by local commissioners who are aware of local situations and are capable of making appropriate directions.

But the commissioners are all ministerial appointees making the commission very vulnerable to political manipulation (especially after a change of state government).

As for selective, individual welfare quarantining like the Cape York model. This seems a much better option than removing neglected children from their families - at present the only course of action available to support agencies.

While a more targeted system of welfare quarantining involving an element of community consultation is a definite improvement on the blanket quarantining approach in the NT, I’m not sure that the Cape York model addresses all of the problems we’ve seen in the NT.

As far as I understand, the commission will be a statutory body comprising representatives from each community. The involvement with the local community should be a good thing, if it works to enable them to take control of their own affairs. I haven’t looked closely enough at the governance model to get an idea if it will work effectively - it’s important that it has appropriate checks and balances and that there is an independent appeals mechanism (one of the big problems in the NT has been the exclusion of those quarantined from the social security appeals tribunal).

We still need to hear a lot more about how the Cape York process is going to work and there are still a lot of unanswered questions about how the quarantining process will be rolled out there. How those being quarantined will be supported and encouraged to take control and responsibility of their own finances and to tackle family problems like alcohol, gambling, humbugging …etc.

I don’t feel that a solution based on punitive methods rather than empowering ones is the ideal way to solve some of these problems.

I’d like to see us putting in place some voluntary systems first - like properly supporting and extending the CentrePay model (which Tangentyere has used successfully for three decades) and enabling people in remote communities to have access to some form of community banking. This might be supported by both an education campaign (about managing money, nutrition, etc.) and access to financial counselling services.

Once there are systems in place that give people some way of solving some of these problems in an empowering fashion, then it would be appropriate to engage with communities about how best to identify people who needed help so you could first encourage and then push them to do the right thing. The end point might be the same - in terms of compulsorily quarantining some problem families… but I think its important to both give them some opportunity and encouragement to do the right thing first, before moving in with the ‘big stick’ approach.

Have a look at programs such as the Mexican Oportunidades project, which aims to reward those families doing the ‘right’ thing, rather than punish those doing the ‘wrong’ thing. More info and links here.

For a more detailed analysis of income management, have a look at our backgrounder on various systems being implemented in the Northern Territory, Cape York and the Kimberley and the comparison against international models.

I also think that its important to give families and individuals who are compulsorily quarantined a way out - so that they can get access to financial counselling support (plus rehab if needed) and transition to a voluntary system - where they get the opportunity to take control, prove they can do the right thing … and are followed up and supported.

While I agree with much of what you have said about the N.T. intervention, the Cape York trial is a different thing altogether. For a start it is an Aboriginal initiative that has come about after 10 years of development and lobbying, it is not the same as the slap-dash non-consultation of the N.T.

Which is why I am curious about where the Greens stand. The Cape York trial is very different from the N.T. intervention but seems to have been tarred with the same brush, wrongly so in my opinion.

The very term intervention is an anathema to my mind.

DEWR have a habit of calling the people they are supposed to serve as officers bound by due diligence under social democratic principle “stock”.

This “intervention” seems to be an extension of that culture. Set in motion by sensationalist politics, re election strategy, the last ditch knee jerks of the Howard conservatives.
It’s a very smelly shot dead albatross hanging around the necks of some apparently well meaning but truly misguided non indigenous folk.
Noel Peterson, Mal Brough have been embarrassed by the worst of it, people like myself are shamed by it.

The intervention seems to represent amongst other phenomena:
The rapid expansion of authoritative powers given to groups of inexperienced, white middle class prejudiced and haplessly systematically incompetent personnel.

A training ground for public servants more than ready to re enforce existing counter productive prejudices, widen the chasm between the funding and its contributors’ ethos, waste, wallow and rejoice in money bucket short term ‘get results hide the mistakes’ policies and shore up the returned protectionist status quo.

A culture which is able to exploit ‘piss & paedophilia’ witch hunts for sensationalist gains, whilst removing self determination from all its purports to care for, a culture which in the process obscures the effective working models developed in spite of its negative effects cannot expect to have any credibility.

It’s interesting to note the exponential rush of mining claims that rode the back of the Intervention and the withdrawal of permit self determination rights.

It’s also interesting to note that the crushing pogrom which removed the old ALP era ATSIC which despite all its incompetence’s, the same program which saw the theft of a massive indigenous art collection by the previous government. (All the culling of Atsic and its replacement by “the intervention” seems to have achieved is a whole lot of public money waste shifted from indigenous folk to a few less indigenous folk and a whole lot of corrupt and opportunistic white folk)
The same consistent modus operandi which removed effective long term seed funding from self determination programs;
Shrunk and almost irradiated the intimate community police and health liaison services by the same process of fiscal and beurocratic attrition
; The same underpinning ethos which “cleaned out” whole suburbs in what would amount to police backed government xenophobia akin to the Mugabe slum trashing from any independent observation aspect, prior to the Sydney Olympics.
The same middle class aspirational packaging obsessed narcissistic mandate culminated in the “intervention’.

It’s not good DNA John, looks to be a host killing parasite to me.

Although the trial is an Aboriginal initiative facilitated primarily through the state government, the intervention legislation is relied on to enable Centrelink to selectively quarantine welfare through the Families Responsibilities Commission.

Do the Green senators support the federal legislation enabling selective welfare quarantining on Cape York?