If children are at the mercy of parents who cannot or will not budget for and provide essentials to their families because they are spending pensions on booze, drugs, gambling or other non-essentials, then this scheme must be introduced.

But who is going to administer it and detect the rogue parents - not all welfare recipients are irresponsible. It would seem that the only way to ensure that no neglected children slipped through the net would be to apply the direct debit scheme to all welfare recipients. This would be insulting and humiliating to good parents who have fallen on hard times.

A lot of work needs to be done on this one to prove that it is acceptable and workable.

Nice thought, but I have seen neglect of children in wealthy families who can afford the drugs and booze and the rent and schooling. What pray tell are we going to do about those kids? Neglect isn't just not paying the rent.

This scheme on a voluntary basis already exists and Centrelink recipients are "encouraged" to avail themselves of it's features.

And anyone who has worked for 5 minutes with addicted people, parents or not, will know that nothing will stop them from getting the next taste, having another go 'cause I'll win that one, or just one more drink before I go. Taking money away will not make them better parents, but more desperate addicts.

Get in to communities, especially indigenous ones and ones like the Gordon Estate in Dubbo. Actually start to get rid of the grog that is being smuggled in to remote communities, get rid of the "ring it up on the account" and the handing over of the bank account details to the store owners, get rid of the violence, squallid living conditions, 17 year less life expectancy, the abject hopelessness of having nothing to look forward to in life except finishing school to be unemployed and see the world through the fumes coming out of the top of a tin filled with petrol.

Then start looking at people neglecting their kids, because society in general has neglected and is still neglecting their parents and grandparents.

Funny, I thought the federal government was opposed to social engineering?

Punitive measures for dysfunctional parents are not in the best interests of children.

In practice, only fathers can be fairly punished without negative impact to children. Any proposals ignoring such obvious facts cannot be seriously considered.

Children definitely need to be protected from parents and carers who neglect them however this scheme will not ensure children are not abused. It will not ensure they are not neglected morally as well as physically. It will not ensure people with drug and alcohol dependencies will get support to deal with their behaviours. It will not ensure child protection authorities will do a good job. In small communities where child protection and family breakdown are considered important issues, a program such as this might have a positive impact. I am not convinced it will transfer to larger communities where there is little depth of community caring.

Chidren's welfare should be the priority in any society. Their needs should be met before anything else and if their parents are incapable of supplying those needs, someone must step in and either supervise or remove the children.
To tiptoe around to avoid hurting the parents tender feelings is utterly stupid,if they are capable of tender feelings, their children will not be neglected anyway.
Rent can be deducted and vouchers can assure that the children will eat. Some money will be left and that the parents can spend however unwisely. Schools could teach more about budgetting.

Here's a hypothetical. I'm a parent with two kids (3 & 9), on welfare, and an alcoholic who spends the majority of my benefits on booze. My kids are neglected and rarely eat anything but two minute noodles or the occasional cheeseburger (bought when I go to get my money from the bank, which I get to by taking the bus as I don't have a car). One day I am visited by a social worker because my 9 year old has been missing school (and I didn't know, I rarely know where she is). Seeing my domestic situation (I'm drunk when she comes) the social worker reports me to Centrelink.

They deem, in the interests of my children, that I'm to only get one third of my benefits as a monetary deposit in my nominated account. To access the other two thirds I'm given a 'smart-card' which can be used to purchase food, pay for electricity and fuel (even though I don't have a car). At first I'm really angry that my choices and liberties have been curtailed, and even angrier that I cannot spend all my money on booze.

However, after thinking about it I see a solution. I call a few friends and one comes to pick me up. We drive to the nominated fuel outlet (coincidently it is affiliated to a supermarket chain) and we put in fifty bucks of fuel. I pay using my smart-card and my friend gives me the cash. We then go to the supermarket where I buy two hundred bucks worth of food. My mate then give me a hundred bucks cash and buys me a couple of bottles of Jim Beam in exchange for the food.

I then get dropped back at home where I get smashed, ignore the 3 year old's plea for something to eat and have no idea where the 9 year old is. Situation normal, just a bit more hassle getting there.

seeker, I suspect that your "irony" was a bit close to actual attitudes held by some to be recognised as irony.

This debate could be approached on a 80/20 (or some variation of the above). About 47% of all substantiated neglect and abuse occurs in single parent lead households. Where abuse or neglect is identified in a single parent household check and see if the other parent is able and willing to have the care of the kids, if so provide them with some support to help them manage their employment and parenting responsibilities then let them get on with being parents. That in itself would be a good start to the issue of child protection. Where there has been a substantial lack of balance in the property settlement as a result of the "need to care for the children" reverse it.

Kids will suffer some harm during the transition but I expect much less than being left in the primary care of a parent who's main interest in them is CSA payments, FTB (parts A and B) and their beloved pension.

The above would not be suitable in all circumstances but it might be a viable start in some cases and provide some incentive for better parenting in other cases.

R0bert

Indeed R0bert. It was written with a liberal dose of sarcasm and irony, but even to me it rings true on so many occasions.

I look forward to this year’s end, when I finally gain my independence and cease to be a “client” of that great Australian institution – the CSA.