I have been of two minds on this issue for quite a while but before I go any further let me say three things. First of all, I may be misinformed on some of the things below so PLEASE tell me if something I have said is factually wrong. Secondly, I am a twenty something(just!) married guy with all my hair and an athletic build that owns two properties. So the level of discrimination and disadvantage I have met in my life is most likely between bugger all and none. Therefore my point of view may be a little skewed because of this. Thirdly, I'd also like to say that I am vehemently against discrimination based on race, age, sex, religion, disability, sexuality etc...

Reading an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald(I think you might have to be registered with the Herald or the AGE to read it) got me thinking about this topic again.

It talks about how the Government is thinking about placing conditions on the special welfare handouts given to Aboriginals. Conditions such as their Parenting payments being subject to the children attending school, having health checkups and even more controversially, instead of just handing them cash in the bank, giving them a smart card so the money can't be spent on alcohol.

Now acting Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tom Calma, said;

"he would be deeply concerned if conditions were to be introduced placing restrictions on access to services for one part of the community defined by race.

but he obviously is not concerned in the least bit that these same people receive these benefits simply because of their race. They are not means tested and no one else no matter how needy has access to these payments unless you are Aboriginal.

So my problem with this is that people who feel like they are discriminated against say they simply want to be treated just like everyone else. But what's the deal with these payments when everybody else does not get them?

This is something that Pauline Hanson gained a lot of support over when she wanted to abolish a lot of this discrimination based on race. But I don't think it's that simple.

It is possible that reverse discrimination has a place. For example Aboriginal people can get A LOT of assistance in getting a place at Uni including a GREATLY reduced TER requirement and financial assistance that is not means tested. This may seem unfair to non Aboriginal people but what it does is increase the numbers of Aboriginals in Tertiary Education and makes a dent in the cycle of poverty that often exists their community.

It also serves to increase their profile and status amongst their peers and family, which may influence others to do the same. This can only be good for everyone and in the long term save and earn the country a lot of money.

The Labour Party's quota of women parliamentarians is another example of this. Whilst it goes against the basic principle of putting the best possible person in the job, it does promote women in politics, which is something we need a lot more of. Amanda Vanstone and Bronwyn Bishop not withstanding.

So I think at the moment I have the view that there might be a place for reverse discrimination in some cases however that should not be extended to financial payments.

No one should receive money simply because they are or are not a particular race and ANY Government payments should be means tested.

If you are in need and are ready to help yourself, you receive that help. You should not receive payment wether you need it or not because of your race and conversely you should not be denied payment when needed because of your race.