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.

Please explain what is wrong with this reasoning.
Hasbeen,
Everything & nothing ! I wouldn't want to share like that but some people are quite happy to.
By sharing you're giving up & by not sharing you're giving up also.
I for one like to see more content couples than broke ones. What the present penalties are doing is punish decent couples. let me ask you. How would you feel if some bureaudroid can tell you & the wife to live on $634/fortnight with a young child just because your'e married ?
When a Centrelink officer advises you to get divorced so you can afford to live then I think there's a serious flaw in the system.
The Pension is merely a Superannuation but unlike the Pension a Superannuation is for each person, not reduced if you're married. Pensions are paid for whereas Superannuation is heavily subsidised & can be salary sacrificed. Just because some of us were around before the systems changed doesn't make Welfare recipients as Paul1405, who btw. benefits from Govt subsidised Super, likes to call us Pensioners.
Before denouncing people who share to improve their conditions people should denounce negative gearing even more !

Why are regressive leftists whinging about this?

It's THEIR welfare system, designed by regressive leftists for regressive leftism, to create more regressive leftist poverty & has been working VERY well at creating more regressive leftist poverty, creating more regressive leftist domestic violence & creating more regressive leftist child abuse.

You can't create the new commune, until you have completely destroyed the family, or the foundation stone that a free, democratic, private enterprise society or culture stands upon & that's what the CCPA or Chinese Communist Party of Australia has done almost perfectly.

The regressive left have "made their bed" & now are complaining about "lying in it".

This socialist sabotage is your doing & enemy troops will soon be landing to take over.

Enjoy the consequences of what you have done.

"May you live in interesting times & forever"

Dear imacentristmoderate,

Crikey old fella, the gout playing up is it?

What a turgid lot on repetitious nonsense.

We live in the kind of progressive society which supports a universal health scheme like Medicare. Your kind of politics wouldn't have a bar of it if it were to be proposed now but Australians overwhelmingly support it.

Stop watching Fox News and stand up for a few decent Australian values for once.

Dear SteeleRedux, You are joking aren't you?

The repetition is necessary when mansplaining to leftist, feminist females how the world really works.

I am "standing up for Australian values".

YOU are standing up for Anti-Australian Communist Chinese values, along with ALL other loony, leftist nut jobs on Australian soil.

Universal health care services, universal education services, universal welfare services, universal social services were invented by the Presbyterian Churches of Holland & Scotland hundreds of years ago.

During the Protestant Christian Reformation & Protestant Christian Enlightenment, but of course you already knew that, didn't you.

We live in the kind of progressive society which supports a universal health scheme like Medicare.
Steeleredux,
We had a good Health system before your lot infiltrated it with the nonsense we have to endure now !
In Qld everything Health & Dental was free until your crowd ruined it all.

I agree Hasbeen that there are a few issues with my above musings. It would mean that every stay at home mum in theory would perhaps be entitled to unemployment benefits- and this would mean a significant increase in the welfare budget and subsequent pressure on the tax payers. I'm a little concerned however with government interference with personal relationships and this seems to be an example of this.

In a sense it seems to imply that the system is broken.

Perhaps primogeniture (and perpetual inalienable land) was a better system- it didn't require welfare- and the government only needed to be concerned with proximate affairs- not everything.

Republican Benjamin Franklin said that it was important to have hospitals for the poor because it provided more labour for the rich.

In a sense the PBS provides a similar function but obviously the costs need to be carefully managed.

An unstable society isn't good either.

I think a lot of businesses have forgotten that the true source of wealth is thought and invention and not artificial monopolies. IP law quite rightly protects inventors profits for a period of time to stimulate innovation in society- I don't have an issue with protectionism between countries- but often the relationships in the supply chain conspire to create monopolies of a different sort.

This is a tricky problem- but worth talking about.

true source of wealth is thought and invention
Canem Malum,
One would think so however, I can tell from personal experience that stealing designs which some inventors find prohibitively expensive to patent is part of the practise also.

true source of wealth is thought and invention
Canem Malum,
One would think so however, I can tell from personal experience that stealing designs which some inventors find prohibitively expensive to patent is part of the practise also.

Answer- Yes stealing looters have a time honoured culture. Yes the patent system has issues. Looting is harder than invention in the long game.

Tristan Ewins lives in Fantasyland where money falls from the skies, everybody can get generous government assistance, and the way to get as much money as he wants for his pet causes of welfare, refugees, and the importation of crime and welfare prone dysfunctional minorities (another word for Labor voters"), is to cry "more taxes, more taxes, more taxes."

Naaaah, that doesn't work, Tristan. The Democrat cities in the USA have been trying that for decades and all if has done is stifle economic activity, and send the most productive employers and taxpayers fleeing to more sensible US states, where they are regarded as economic assets, not as sheep to be shorn.

Your philosophy is just like Communism, Tristan. How many times does it need to fail before you emerge from this fantasy world that you and your comrades inhabit?

In 1965, Tristan, 3 % of the working age population in Australia was on welfare benefits of one sort or another. Now 16 % of adults rely on welfare. Another take on this – in 1965 there were 22 taxpayers for every one person on welfare; now the number is 5. Our welfare system is unsustainable as it is, Tristan. Australia after the Chinese invented flu will be 1 trillion dollars in dept. And you want to keep expanding welfare?

Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

Extrapolate forward and you see a vision of Greece, Spain, and Cypress, with their own national insolvency problems. The populations of these countries, their elected representatives, and their Tristan clones, were acutely aware of their financial insolvency, decades ago. But like irresponsible creditors with a new credit card, they borrowed until they could borrow no more, and they wished away their problems until the bailiffs arrived.