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.