The NDIS has its inglorious history attached to an ululating witch riding side saddle on the helve of a broom, Julia Gillard.

What is laughable is the plea from this author for restorations of the consequences of the evil concoction the NDIS is, towards the deaf ears of the Labor party.

Dan

Yup! And just so stupid! Given many of these relationships, if they're not condemned by poverty or inculcated bureaucratic racism to fail! Would save the government billions! Given many would accept the role of long term carer for the disabled through their love of the other?

The government with its asinine rules and regulations, legislates against love, the disabled and for the private sector, profiteering via disability! [E.G., The NDIS CEO's salary? 2 mill a year!? OBSCENE!]

One real live HUMAN hug in twenty years! For heaven's sake, don't overdo it!
Alan B.

Morrison & Frydenberg will go down in history as the relationship wreckers if indeed they're the ones directing Centrelink !

"The bottom line is that these arrangements condemn hundreds of thousands of disabled Australians to likely isolation and loneliness, where they must fear the financial consequences of having relationships."

Is no different for anyone on welfare, and that includes single mothers pension.
If they start a de-facto relationship, they lose money.

Anyone on any kind of welfare, or even if not on welfare starts a relionship with someone that is, well the person on welfare loses money.
The government has a long history of punishing people fininacially for having a partner.
The costs of living don't really change.

The free traders believe in small government and hence reducing government spending- but perhaps all people in the unemployment system (and married people in the taxable system) need to be treated equally independent of whether they are in a relationship or not. Being in a relationship is potentially a way to create self sufficiency and power as well as spreading and reducing costs- because of the value created in relationship cooperation of all sorts- the government bureaucracy have got their hands out for their cut. Also many ideologies don't want sub-sources of power within society as they consider them a threat. In my view the government should be supportive of cooperation and relationships as they stabilize the community.

Hang on a bit here. If 2 separate people/families decide to move in together, in any Oz city they have just saved between $200 & $500 a week. In any major city at least $20,000 a year in accommodation costs alone.

Then just think for a moment who is supplying that welfare. It is not some nebulous "government" but the Oz tax payer. That means the average family, who are often having their own problems paying their rent or mortgage with what is left of their pay after taxes are deducted. We need to be well aware of this fact when considering the level of handout they are required to fund.

If a couple move into welfare they get a reduced payment to that given to 2 singles. This is reasonable as only one household has to be funded. I can see no reason that a new couple should receive a higher level of welfare than that given to existing couples.

Please explain what is wrong with this reasoning.