We all have an inalienable right to other people's money. Especially me.

I'm seldom complimentary about our current political leadership but on this issue I wholeheartedly agree with Labors decision.

To call it "serious breach of human rights" is both ridiculous and shows up the authors & signaturies of the ACOSS document for idiots.

Fair adequate welfare is a benchmark for civilised society, recognizing those who require support - short or long term. Yes - I call it a "right" but like all "rights" - with responsibilities attached.

Recently these have shifted into the spotlight as being ignored by some welfare recipients. Responsibilities like making efforts to better oneself, reduce or eliminate dependency and to use welfare payments foremost on basic needs of self and dependents. Particularly dependents!

I'm the(proud)parent of a young man who spent years on Disability payment after near fatal illness left him with serious health issues. We watched him struggle to regain health - slowly with many setbacks, but always he sought to give something back by working for charitable & volunteer organisations. This not only contributed but gave him sense of purpose. Now he's working 28 hrs week and no longer gets welfare. Believe he remains classified "disability" if becomes unemployed because of permanent damage but he is striving for a full-time job. Still does a weekly stint for Meals on Wheels in our nearby town - has time and believes he should.

Find it galling when I encounter the "World owes me this and more and you can go jump" attitude of some welfare recipients - particularly when it's obvious they're quite happy to live the lifestyle - but need a bit more handout yeah ... Worse - when supporting parents spend money meant to house & care for the family on booze, smokes, pokies and the like. Can't understand how 'advocates' can protest about some level of spending control with these clients.

So YES - putting more onus on the responsibilities of welfare recipients in general is overdue. What's more - it's likely only to affect those who aren't making the effort to meet their obligation.

I don't tend to agree that because far more serious human rights abuses happen else where that invalidates any claim to a human rights abuse here which is not on a similar scale. On pretty much any issue there will always be someone better off and others worse off.

I do agree though with the general thrust of the article. As a broad policy its not unreasonable to expect that once the specific needs of early childhood are passed its reasonable for the those footing the bill to expect more from those seeking financial help from the taxpayer.

The tick is in having a system that supports genuine need rather than those determined to live off others. Something governments dont tend to do well at.

Its also worth remembering that formsome of these families there will be a non resident parent being getting restricted access to kids because more time with that parent reduces the money paid to the resident parent. That for some of these families where the non resident parent has a history of working hard the non resident parent may find themself in financial hardship paying a forced level of child support well beyond the actual costs of raising the child with no accountability on how the money is used.

If the resident parent has managed to repartner with someone who can keep them without needing social security the non resident parent will pay extra because they dont have a way of insisting that the resident parent work and contibute to the cost of the inflated costs of raising the child.

All external payments should carry the same obligations to contibute to the cost of raising children, not just where the government can save itself money.

R0bert

'Find it galling when I encounter the "World owes me this and more and you can go jump" attitude of some welfare recipients'

You know something? I find the insensitive and cliched moralising in statements like this far MORE galling. And I suspect the only time you've 'encountered' such an attitude is through some media beat-up on some commercial current affairs program.

Over several decades of living, I have met many people whose lives have, at one time or another, depended on the receipt of welfare (often literally). Their attitudes range from 'Thank God I can put food on the table' to 'If it weren't for government assistance, we'd be living on the street'. Most of the time they are too worried sick about their future and that of their families to nurture any sense of so-called entitlement.

This attitude of constantly punctuating every discussion about welfare with offensive 'Some welfare recipients are bludgers on the taxpayer' tarbrushing is far more selfish and irresponsible than anything even the most devious of welfare recipients could come up with.

Not only that, it's attitudes like yours and the rampant, mostly right-wing, welfare-haters lobby over the last 30 years that has led to 100s of millions of dollars in wasteful taxpayer expenditure being sucked up by a massive, unwieldy Centrelink bureaucracy. Much of Centrelink's time and funding is spent policing an infinitesimal, and largely fictitious, number of supposed welfare cheats, rather than doing what it's supposed to do, i.e. to provide a compassionate source of assistance to people who have fallen through the cracks of an increasingly unforgiving society, and largely through no fault of their own.

A large part of the problem is ACOSS itself.

It it's policies are very similar to the policy of the druggies support industry, of harm minimisation. A policy not designed to eliminate the drug problem, but to perpetuate it, & thus ensure the income of those in the industry.

The last thing ACOSS want is less welfare recipients. Such a reduction would lead to calls for a reduction in the number employed supporting our poor helpless single parents, & other over supported bludgers. I have never heard any pronouncement by anyone from ACOSS that showed any interest in helping those footing the bill for their employment.

An employees/friends wife could not believe her luck When she found a job with an NGO "helping" supporting parents. Good money, a company car, & a case load of one such family to be helped. That's right, one family to help, allocated 6 weeks exclusive attention for each one.

Perhaps the funniest thing was that she was giving financial advise, & sorting out the debts of these people, when I continually had to give them advances against salary, to pay their regular bills.

Well, there you go....it's obvious that all that welfare funnelled to single parents could instead be directed to the far more deserving pork-barrel of "middle-class" welfare - a far superior political tactic than actually supporting lone parents to "be there" for their kids.

A "distinguished fellow" at the centre for "independent" studies - what a hoot.
And yes I agree with Poirot - when is the pork-barrel gravy train for the comfortably well off going to be down sized.
Although to be fair I suspect that Peter has at times criticized this phenomenon too.

@ Killarney: "Their attitudes range from 'Thank God I can put food on the table' to 'If it weren't for government assistance, we'd be living on the street'."

Personally I think that is an issue. You stop "doing" anything with them and set them free to "do" for themselves. All we (society) and the government have to "do" is to let them exercise their many abilities. Your whole vocabulary speaks of the disenfranchisement, the imprisonment of initiative, and the patronising relegation to second-class citizens which are the hallmarks of the welfare "gulag."

Sure for the totally disabled etc I do think it's a necessity but having a child is not a disability, curse or entitlement.

I agree with Killarney that there are some who really need the help. It does not always work to have young children in out of hours care especially if the child is not coping well with the impacts of family separation.There are limited job opportunities available to parents within hours which actually work for the stuff parents often need to do with children and schools. Especially so if you are the new starter in a job rather than established in a job where mutual trust has been built up.

I also thing that we need more accountability in some situations to save that help being wasted on those trying to play the system, those who use the guise of being there for the for the kids and are anything but there for the kids. There are not easy answers to any of that, more options for support when children are not doing well (but not being able to use that as an excuse by parents who don't act responsibly).

We certainly need reform in the child support system to cut out the financial incentives for conflict and keeping the non-resident parent out of children's lives so that parents have some motivation to work together for the well being of their children. many of the issues faced by single parents can be reduced if the other parent is actively involved. The current system has so many flaws that it almost looks like it was designed to create conflict rather than reduce it.

R0bert

"'Find it galling when I encounter the "World owes me this and more and you can go jump" attitude of some welfare recipients'

You know something? I find the insensitive and cliched moralising in statements like this far MORE galling. And I suspect the only time you've 'encountered' such an attitude is through some media beat-up on some commercial current affairs program."

Killarney - Note the word "SOME" in the sentence you quote. During 12 years working in Public Health I encountered a great many welfare recipients. SOME, the majority, were genuine folk in a tight spot needing a hand out and hand up. SOME, unfortunately, were bludgers playing the system for all they could, irresponsible losers with no intention of ever trying to earn a living themselves and a fraudster or two thrown in here and there.

My third sentence: " Fair adequate welfare is a benchmark for civilised society, recognizing those who require support - short or long term. Yes - I call it a "right" but like all "rights" - with responsibilities attached."

So that makes me a "rampant right-wing welfare-hater"? Because I expect welfare to have some obligation attached? Or does it make you look like someone who doesn't read well?

I mentioned my youngest son - on a Disability payment for 6 years. He has permanent brain damage but has managed to reach the stage where he's now self supporting. It wasn't an easy journey but he hopes to shoot more goals. Welfare helped him to help himself and it's there as a safety net - which is what it's meant to do.

It's not meant to support women with multiple children by multiple partners to spend much of their time and payment at the pub. It's not meant for the fit 18 yr old who is capable of working but refuses to do menial work because he doesn't fancy it. If you think it is - more fool you. Otherwise maybe you "protest too much"?

divine msn

What difference does the use of ‘some’ make, when you’ve successfully tarred all welfare recipients with the same brush? Why this kneejerk obligation, every time welfare is discussed, to bring up some infinitesimal number of people who supposedly rort the welfare system?

In your work for the Department of Health, perhaps you should have sat down and talked to some of those ‘irresponsible losers’ you so despise. Every loser has their story. They more than likely have a disability too, only it’s on the inside.

poirot

'supporting lone parents to "be there" for their kids'

Agree. A compassionate society would see this as absolutely essential. But we've become an increasingly unforgiving society that has become so obssessed with bottom lines and economic growth, that it's sunk to punishing children of single parents for the crime of turning 8.

"What difference does the use of ‘some’ make, when you’ve successfully tarred all welfare recipients with the same brush?"

Dear Killarny! "SOME, the majority, were genuine folk in a tight spot needing a hand out and hand up." in first paragraph of my response to ur accusations as well as my reiteration that I consider welfare a human right - for those in genuine need. BTW how do you think I would have known the situations of my patients if I wasn't talking to them AND doing something to help where possible? Even the DROPKICKS - for the sake of their dependents mainly.

I have to advise you to either read more carefully, seek treatment for paranoia or to remove a chip off your shoulder? Maybe all of the above ...

Meantime, the MORE that happens to encourage, support and even PUSH those capable of helping themselves to do so the BETTER - for society, the economy and the individual.

Here's a brief but pertinent article:

http://thepunch.com.au/articles/middle-class-welfare-will-test-australias-means/

"So what was the Oppositions response?

It continues to support generous family payments rejecting the term "middle-class.welfare"...Better still, how does the Opposition explain away its extremely generous paid parental leave scheme which would see bankers paid at their full salaries up to $150,000 per year for six months absence from work..."

divine_msm - nice little hand-up and hand-out for the poor blighters, don't you agree? When I hear you ranting against this type of pork-barrel, I'll listen a little more attentively.

(Dropkicks - paranoia - chip off your shoulder....Wow! I'm glad you're not my doctor : )

A fundamentally sound article, presenting a reasonable question:
Under what conditions should welfare support be reviewed or revised?

Perhaps age 8 is too young an age to induce an automatic review of child-care entitlement, but surely a reasonable principle to be applied across the board would be to endeavour by reasonable means to avert and even to reverse the evolution of lifelong welfare dependency. It is not setting much of an example for a capable single parent with one child to continue to rely totally on childcare after the child has attained say 10 years of age, steadfastly rejecting any inducement to seek meaningful employment. An even worse example if this situation continues through the child's early teen years.

Why should it be unreasonable for support to be varied to unemployment benefit where suitable employment is available and the dependent child is of suitable age and mental/physical condition, and where satisfactory conditions apply for care of the child during the parent's absence at work? Ok, all sorts of complications - how many children and at what ages, suitable local work and childcare availability, flexible working hours availability, working or unemployed partner, special needs and mitigating factors. But, the principle is surely reasonable - that where conditions permit, work should be taken, so long as this would not cause undue and unreasonable hardship on the family - the principle that all mature individuals should contribute when and where conditions permit.

As for 'middle class welfare' - that is a separate issue, and I am of the opinion that all welfare and family allowances should be subject to income and assets scaling, including regarding employer and/or government subsidisation during and after pregnancy. Welfare, allowances and tax breaks should Not be based on being 'even handed', but rather be 'targeting' support to where it is needed most and can be of the greatest benefit to families and households to get on their feet and to lead meaningful and responsible lives.

Though a bit moot given the current employment situation, reasonable principles should not be deserted because of populist, political or temporary inconvenience.

Whether single parents with children older than 8 who have been claiming Parenting Payment for many years SHOULD be told to look for work is a leading question. It reinforces the unthinking assumption that paid employment is the only appropriate way to meet "mutual obligations" ... mutual obligations being a concept basically defined within Centrelink on the requirements for taxpayer support implying the highest moral values. Starting with such an assumption is very prejudicial to honest discussion.

It is reasonable to re-consider without prejudice not just what the law currently says about the legality of this notion (ACOSS sees "Mutual obligation as human rights abuse" according to the law), but more fundamentally to question what is morally right or wrong about our understanding of “mutual obligations”.

Moral, not legal questioning, has also been at the heart of comments made by others and morality is probably also at the heart of ACOSS objections too.

The author, like Centrelink, both sides of politics, most taxpayers, and most of the commentators here, pre-supposes that taxpayer support SHOULD (a moral judgement) depend on particular “moral obligations” about paid work. Even ACOSS would probably say that their objection is not about the obligation to find paid work but about the age of the child when taxpayer support should end and the “mutual obligation” to take paid work should start.

Before the reactionaries (knee jerks) immediately make another bunch of assumptions, start closing their minds and start formulating their prejudices and preconceptions into new “comments” about where I might be heading, I believe we do have obligations to each other and to society, and that these necessarily require action and mutually beneficial equitable returns. However I do question the assumption that paid employment is the only appropriate way to meet our obligations, and I do believe that it is unjust to require paid employment outcomes.

My reasoning is contained in a short paper at http://on.fb.me/P9HrH2

Regards
@landrights4all

The link I provided in my earlier comment is to a paper that deals with the moral question about the current understanding of “mutual obligations” and suggests one way some people might choose to fulfill their obligations the advantage of all. However a less “utopian” reform which I think ACOSS and others could endorse is about the reform of Centrelink’s mutual obligation definition as suggested at http://on.fb.me/Azrz9F

@landrights4all

"divine_msm - nice little hand-up and hand-out for the poor blighters, don't you agree? When I hear you ranting against this type of pork-barrel, I'll listen a little more attentively.

(Dropkicks - paranoia - chip off your shoulder....Wow! I'm glad you're not my doctor : )"

Another poster who does not read well?

Poirot -I described the majority of welfare recipients I had dealings with as being in genuine need of a "hand out and a hand up". How in heavens name has this simple statement been misconstrued? Sorry but to me that is what WELFARE is! I wasn't referring to "middle-class welfare" with which I'm not familiar. Bankers and their ilk are generally private health clients.

But guess what? As I wrote in that same sentence, "...I consider welfare a human right - for those in genuine need" Key words - GENUINE NEED. My RANT as you put it is against unnecessary and wasteful use of welfare dollars including by that unwieldy bureaucracy called CENTRELINK.

Now "Dropkicks" - you deal with some of the folk I've had to and come up with a better term. Unfortunately they do exist and in Public Hospitals you'll meet more than your fair share. Tis a great pity, for example, that forced sterilisation is not an option for people on welfare who churn out multiple kids AND spend much of the payment on booze, cigarettes, drugs, pokies while children are malnourished dirty and neglected. Mother of seven by seven different fathers for instance, well known to hospital, police and social services busted for wanting her 13yr old to have paid sex with Mum's latest BF. Distraught girl brought in by police having escaped rape attempt. Mother annoyed at fuss. My point - WELFARE enables the lifestyles of such 'dropkicks'! The more kids she had the more money she got. They are not typical welfare recipients but nor are they that rare.
As for the sarcasm - disrespect for disrespect. Stooping no doubt ... My bad. G'night

Yeah, well divine_msn....it's a strange old world in a social democracy and people like that do exist, although thankfully in the minority.

Unfortunately that is the standard that's oft quoted - examples of "dropkicks" and the like. I would like to think that most lone parents really do have the best interests of their children at heart, and flinging them onto the stretcher of casual employment and school holiday juggling when the government is padding the middle-class seems a tad obscene when all is said and done.

However, I take your point and appreciate that you see things the rest of us don't. I apologise if I hit below the belt.

My bad.

Poirot I don't know what world you live in, but it must be a different one to me. Out here in my world, I could introduce you to any number of single mothers with multiple kids, who have never had a partner.

With no boat people jamming the access, they get first crack at public housing, & lead a very comfortable life. There may be some, but I don't know of a single case of a supporting parent, single because of a family break up that is on welfare.

I can see no reason why we should not with these people "fling them onto the stretcher of casual employment and school holiday juggling", when that is what every young mother, yes the partnered too, have to do to pay the mortgage, or commercial rents.

I think every cent we can save from the welfare bill would be much better used to reduce the tax burden on these young women's families. Too many of them after paying for child care, &/or the school holiday juggling, & the cost of unsubsidized housing, are no better off than their bludging fellow mothers.

Sympathy is a noble emotion, but miss guided sympathy is foolishness personified.

divine msn

Please stop shouting at people that they can't read simply because they don't agree with you.

SOME aeroplanes crash. But people can have a conversation about air travel without having to always mention this fact.

It's a pity you can't apply this principle to the subject of welfare. Instead, you prefer to pour a lot of prejudicial scorn on a small group of down and out people whose poverty and vulnerablility make them easy targets. You're certainly not alone in this - and several other commenters here have taken the same tactic. In fact, it's standard, kneejerk rhetoric in all discussions about welfare.

Poirot has pointed out the hypocrisy of pouring so much scorn on these few people, while much bigger middle class welfare rorts and wastage exist but get almost no attention - and I agree with her. MY main point, however, is that this exaggerated hysteria over a small few welfare cheats has created an unwieldy welfare policing bureaucracy that costs the taxpayer millions more than the occasional welfare bludger.

Perhaps one day you'll finally get my point - but not until your reading improves.

So, Killarney, do you think the 'cheats' should be able to get away with it - just to save the cost involved in policing the system? Or, do you think there is a better way to bring such miscreants to account? (If there is no effective policing, how many more might be induced to have a lash?)

Poirot,
It appears that 'Landrights' has some ideas on how 'mutual obligation' could work (though I have not yet had opportunity to look at the link provided) - perhaps this could include provision for home schooling single parents, and even for those volunteering for say 25 hours unpaid work per week at a charity or government-subsidised non-profit NGO? Discretion, or appropriate flexibility, being the key to satisfying the rule or regulation whilst also satisfying the intent and the objective?

In my view, the best interests of the children should be paramount, and in this interest there should be a strong working relationship between Centrelink and child protection services to ensure family welfare support is being applied as effectively as possible. No-one wants a police state, but those milking the system are denying more effective provision for those who are more deserving of assistance.

Let me state straight off that I am for Centrelink requiring single parents and hopefully helping them to go back to work when their child turns 8.

What I am against is cutting their payments to do this.

Centrelink already has plenty of methods it uses to make sure people are looking for work.
They are required to present evidence to Centrelink that they have applied for so many jobs a week.
They are provided with training by Workready Businesses.

Centrelink also has one on one guidance officers to sit with people required to look for work to help and monitor their progress.
In other words they keep a a strong knowledge and reports on what each individual is doing.

What the country saves in taxes will be negated to an extent by the
huge childcare subsidies and extra childcare buildings and teachers it will have to provide. (middle class welfare). So this saving of taxpapers money is a bit of an exageration based on hate and jealousy and not reality.

The government understands this venom directed at single parents(women)so they know they can get away with grabbing some money back without any questions although the so called saving of money is just smoke and mirrors because of the childcare issue.

Another issue I want to address here, is the issue of unwed Fathers.

The woman who has children to different fathers is plain for all to see but what is not plain to see or can be picked out in public are all the unwed Fathers.

These men go around spreading their seed irresponsibly without
using birth control and then piss off to impregnate their next “Partner”or Partners. If they were responsible for all the children they are fathering then there would be no single mothers requiring society's support.

The venom directed at single mothers is unfair because the single fathers are invisible and free from this stigma.

'Centrelink already has plenty of methods it uses to make sure people are looking for work.'

How much do those methods cost us?

'They are required to present evidence to Centrelink that they have applied for so many jobs a week. '

How much does this policing cost us?

'They are provided with training by Workready Businesses.'

How much does this training cost us?

'Centrelink also has one on one guidance officers to sit with people required to look for work to help and monitor their progress.'

How much does this guidance cost us?

Instead of just paying single parents (and all other pensioners) a modest benefit until they are ready to work again (if at all), the taxpayer has to spend many, many times that amount on policing ... oh, sorry ... supporting these people to make sure they apply for X number of jobs per week, report to their Centrelink office X number of times per fornight, attend X number of counselling/training sessions per whatever, scrutinise their personal finances X number of times per quarter, and then there's the processing of all the mountains of paperwork and IT support this entails, and on and on it goes ...

This astronomically expensive and counterproductive process is not about welfare, it's just bipartisan political propaganda to gain electoral mileage out of being seen to be tough on the weak.

Cherful - I've read payments will be switched to lesser Newstart allowance only if the Parenting payment recipient fails to meet participation requirements. It'd be grossly unfair otherwise if job availability was scarce and seeker unable to secure work.

Increased demand for childcare? Be interesting to see the model on which policy was based but since it affects only those whose youngest child is over 8yrs I can't envisage a huge hike. It'd be before/after school care predominately. Non-working Supporting Parents are already entitled/enthusiastic users of subsidised child care, at higher rate to working parents I'm told. Correct me if wrong. Info from Child Care workers

Has to be serious percieved benefit if government will risk alienating some typically Labor voters. Or are they seeking to placate the Faithful - especially lower income voters who resent welfare packages which compare to their minimal wages?

Personally I see longer term benefit in potential to break the welfare cycle - especially where families have been chronically welfare dependant for generations. A working adult in the household brings economic benefit first but is also an extremely important role model. In situations where children have been reared on welfare and parent/s before them, it's a lifestyle. This may mean poor motivation to work, lacklustre interest in career options and very limited work ethic example.

For Supporting Parents, joining the workforce will bring extra money into the household. With luck it will also bring increase in self esteem, ambition and skills leading to better things. In other words - the potential for GAIN is there for genuine people.

As for true "Bludgers", they may find themselves penalised - slightly. GOOD!

I'd like a restriction on children for whom payment could be claimed - based on number at the time of application, allowing additional payment for only 1 more child excepting multiple pregnancy. For instance a single woman who claimed for one child and continuing on benefits would get increase for a second child but not for any subsequent offspring. This plus FREE contraception. Bet it would alleviate some burdens - societal and economic!

divine msn

Why don't you pop into Queensland and do a speaking tour? I'm sure the 20,000 public servants facing the sack there in the near future (many of them single mums) would love to hear your views on inter-generational welfare dependency - especially as workforce ageism and the worsening economic climate ensure that many of them will never find employment again.

the underlying and specious assumption of this article is that market forces (jobs market) exists equally in all areas of the Australian demography, clearly it does not. But don't let this simple fact get in the way of attacking and targeting welfare recipients that the author obviously dislikes (for whatever reason)

As we go down the zero growth slope you will see more and more of
controversies like this.
There is going to be more demand and less funds available for welfare.
So, prepare for it personally and politically.

However the politicians of both parties are asleep.
The Greens are not but they believe it is all a magic pudding.