Family Feud: Brough ain’t that Rough

I strangely find myself in agreement with the Mal Brough as opposed to the ALP and the NGO sector over the issue of direct debiting a portion of welfare checks to feed impoverished children and provide basic services.

Anything that gets in the way of intergenerational poverty and disadvantage is a good thing in my book- no matter how paternalistic or intrusive it may appear. And no, it’s not a silver bullet, and it doesn’t directly address the underlying causes of poverty- but it will be effective in ensuring that children from abusive backgrounds get the best start to life possible.

Now the Knockers

‘Welfare academic, Associate Professor Michael Darcy said the proposal was disturbing.’

"The most disturbing thing is the paternalism and the stigmatisation of poverty that is inherent in it, that suggest that somehow people are poor because they can't manage their funds correctly than because of the economic or social conditions that they live under," Prof Darcy told ABC Radio.

No- it suggests that some children are not getting the right start to life because their parents are not adequately providing for them.

"It takes away the right from them to make decisions about their family spending patterns."

No- it requires abusive parents to take the actions that they should naturally be taking to fulfil their childrens fundamental needs without the need for compulsion.

And Barnaby Joyce doesn't want government interfering in peoples lives. Well if I was a starving child I'd want government interfering in my life.

I say bring it on- along with more measures aimed at fighting poverty and providing for the greater achievement of fundamental economic, social and cultural rights. I’d much rather children being fed, than irressponsible individuals being granted the freedom to drink, gamble and squander welfare while their children starve.