"expensive piece of social engineering, playing into prejudices"..quite right, the whole thing verges on the barbaric, that the so called ALP could do such a thing shows how far right the so called centre has shifted in Australia over the last 20 years...government via regulation and fear is just taken for granted now..only a bunch of upper middle class christian zealots like the ruddsters front bench would even consider it..the ACTU could adopt the same strategy here as they used on workchoices, but they won’t since there’s no organised unemployed workers union to put any pressure on...so those who suffer most suffer more, yet again..plays right into the mad monks hands...vicious policy instigated by vicious individuals.

I am sure Ms. Cox is an upright and caring person but really! When people spend their money on pokies, booze, ciggys and a bag of chips for their children who does that help?
Woolworths of course thanks Eve big vote of thanks from Woolies! All the boxes nicely ticked.
Centrelink workers are just like me and you and yes they make mistakes but also being human it must make them very angry seeing some of the behaviour of recipients of our taxes.
It is not foolproof but the ordinary punter knows it makes sense and Eve should think it through, stop victimising workers and just wake up to herself.

"The plan to withhold Centrelink payments in the NT is an expensive piece of social engineering, playing to prejudices."

The latest intervention follows logically and seamlessly from the idea that the state is responsible for providing some people with income. As it is to be used to purchase the living and welfare of the people, the logical next step is for the government to poke its nose into everyone's private life - because the notion of income redistribution paid for by compulsory confiscations is itself inherently a denial of the rights of private property. What else do you expect? If it is beneath the dignity of those receiving these handouts to have their expenditures scrutinised and deemed allowed or disallowed by the state, why is it not beneath the dignity of the taxpayers to face the same intrusion and scrutiny into every aspect of their income and every transaction in their private accounts?

Centrelink itself is an expensive piece of social engineering, playing to prejudices.

Eva Cox, and all those who agree with her, should be forced to pay for the handouts on the conditions she advocates, leaving everyone else free.

It's a shame this "Centrelink" thing exists in the first place.

These allowances are not favours or charity - these are rightful compensation which all of us, not only the unemployed, disabled, aged etc., deserve to receive:

It is the governments that created a world where one is not allowed to survive without the money that they print, so since they took away our natural livelihood, we all ought to be compensated - unconditionally.

These handouts are basic in the first place, they don't allow for a comfortable living anyway, so the vast majority who wants more will continue to work for more money, comfort and luxury.

Advantages are:

1. Unconditional basic-living allowance for everyone. No one needs to fear hunger or cold.
2. No one needs to agree to work in bad/slavery conditions because survival is guaranteed regardless.
3. Getting rid of the humiliating and wasteful Centrelink monster.
4. No disincentive to start working (especially in a casual/part-time job) because it would cut-down welfare payments: allowance should now be unconditional.
5. Reduction in crime: people do not need to steal because they are hungry.

Notes:
1. Obviously the funds for paying an allowance to everyone must come off taxes, but for middle-income earners the extra tax will be about balanced with the unconditional allowance, so not much will change. Only higher-income earners may pay a bit more, but these are the perpetrators who benefit most from a world that depends on money, so they should also be the compensators.
2. It is not right to punish everyone just because some parents neglect their children - there must be other ways to deal with that, perhaps by handing the children's allowance to a more responsible adult.
3. If such a bill is introduced, it will be very easy to cheat around it: simply pay in the supermarket for someone else's goods, then once out of the supermarket hand them their goods and receive cash.

If stopping women getting bashed, children neglected and sexually abused, wanton vandalism takes social engineering then so be it. It is a tad hypocritical when a feminist complains of social engineering. Women wearing the pants and ridding themselves of inconvenient pregnancies has only come about by social engineering and weak emasculated males.

And yet, Eva Cox, a Centrelink that knows the income of every one would be of great service to the country.

Think; your article would mention your name and your income and the name and income of those who like to add a comment.

But the law is scared, our crooks are safe.