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.