Have you approached the Civil Libertarians? Surely they stand for more than criminals, foreigners ----don't they?
Or are they completely disinterested in genuine cases of Australian hardships?

CJ Morgan: stay on track, man. If you want to comment on Redneck’s alleged hypocrisy, then go back and do it on the original article. When you are here, how about trying to address his arguments as specific to this issue?

Ann and Cath: Unless you’re two teenage girls who’ve been taking in all the dogma in the sheltered halls of Ladies Presbyterian College, I can’t accept you truly believe all this antiquated socialist bilge.

For a start, correct me if I am wrong, but the poverty line is defined as a percentage of the average income whatever. So 11% in poverty is a totally meaningless statement. You will always have 11% in poverty no matter how poor or rich the country is. If the national average income tripled tomorrow, there would still be 11% living in poverty.

Even Tony Abbot said it recently, before being shot down for daring to be politically correct by telling the truth, you will always have poverty (in an absolute rather than relative sense) because of the inherent nature of some people. Although these would only be a minority of those trapped in the poverty cycle of today.

My unprofessional opinion is that poverty perpetuates itself when modern ‘caring’ governments maintain this culture of dependency. Keep dishing out the ‘entitlements’ (I can never get over this new term for the more honest ‘dole’. Talk about politicising the English language.) to anyone who might cause a polly to develop pangs of guilt, with the proviso that if they get a job they will lose all of some of it, and keep reminding them that it is not their fault and that they have a right to it, and what happens?
What motivation is there to get back on your feet and become productive members of society?

It is very hard not to agree with the slogan "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need" I would just love this to be a human possibility.
Sadly it is not.
And so we need incentives for the able to produce to their maximum, and incentives for the less able to do their best, and we need insurance for those who are stricken by unfortunate circumstances.

Some kind of system that rewards effort is absolutely essential given the nature of "man".

Fencepost

i can only hope this child is not suffered into any physical abuse where ever they place her and i only hope the grandmother can rare the child, ,to all you out their i say hello to the forgotten australians , and those who are still to let it out and keep holding in as thier are many of us victims of sexual physical emotional sychcological, all forms and types of abuse caused upon us and them by the serverents that were employed by the goverment of australia in chuches,australian run institutions, state run institutions, orphanages,girls homes,boys homes, remand centres,foster homes,out of home care, in home care regards micheal,

Mr Carson, I already demonstrated that it is perfectly possible to have exactly no-one earning less than half the *average* income.

Poverty and dole-dependence need not be the same thing: if the dole is generous enough (e.g. - half the average income!), then, assuming the country as a whole remains prosperous, then no-one need live in poverty at all. Whether this is a desireable (or even possible) way to solve poverty is questionable, but if your sole purpose was to eliminate poverty, making the welfare net as large as the economy can reasonably afford is one way of achieving it.

To Haygirl.

I pay their bills because they are family, and they would collapse in a heap if I didn’t.

I am not saying that all poor people are stupid, but most of them are. Some people (like my mother) became poor due to circumstances beyond their control. But most smart poor people are upwardly mobile, while dumb people are downwardly mobile. (My mother went from a waitress, usherette, and sheep station cook, to an executive of a TV station.)

As Johnj pointed out, many people on welfare have poor self control and are prone to addictions like gambling, drug abuse, nicotine smoking, and alcohol abuse. As a kid from a Housing Commision project, I shake my head in pitying wonder at the articles in newspapers by well meaning Socialists who seek to blame society for poverty. As a matter of fact, as a former member of the Australian Labor Party, my disillusionment with that party came about when one of its prominent members made a public statement denouncing a prominent Liberal Party member who made a reference to “dole bludgers.”

The Labor Party official said in the press that “dole bludgers” did not exist, and then went into paryoxisms of self righteous indignation blaming Australian society for the fact that so many people lived in poverty. If dole bludgers didn’t exist, that was news to me, because I was surrounded by them.

When Whitlam came to power, all you had to do to get the dole was to turn up at a CES and if they could not find you a job that day, you automatically got the dole. People were turning up claiming they were “actors” and “lion tamers”. My own mates tossed in their apprenticeships, went surfing every day, and thought I was mad for staying in a job.

Blaming society for poverty is something I won’t buy, and I can only presume that the authors of this article have never been closer to the poor western areas of Sydney that the Gladesville Bridge.