"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.

Very easy to explain, such a piddly amount is paid you can say it disappeared due to evaporation.

Runner, quite right, the time has come for all good men to stop talking about Jesus love, turning the other cheek, etc, & start marching in the street, going on strike, joining the "promise keepers", "dads4kids", going to church every week, etc, until the femanazi's stop grooming our children for abuse. Like you i found Eva's new-speak about social engineering, a bit rich coming from a gender terrorist.

She is right about the whole idea being inefficient, but wrong, on why, it is inefficient. I have seen so many white, deadbeat, single mothers on welfare, neglecting & abusing their children, creating poverty for their children to live in, despite enormous extra welfare, housing commission homes, etc. An addict, is an addict, is an addict, is an addict. They are slaves to their addiction and will use & abuse anybody, to feed their addiction, before their children, every time. BTW, they abuse cards by laundering them for cash, then go drinking again, another way is to use the card to buy something, then get a refund. Who would have thought we would see Eva Cox supporting big business over small, local business.

If there is any evidence, to support any intervention, by social workers, then the deadbeat mother, should be taken away to rehab immediately & the biological father should be given all the advantages, she was, & given an opportunity to raise his children properly.

Well, I have not bothered to read the article as you lost me when I read this line;

How many of us could justify how we spend our money to a middle level officer from Centrelink?

This is the whole point, people on benefits think it is 'their money' as if 'they have gone out and earned it'.

The truth is, all benefits are intended as a 'hand up' while one is struggling to meet their day to day expenses.

Get off your fat arse and earn some money, then, and only then, you should be given the right to spend it on what ever you like.

Just remember, it takes up to five dollars of someone else’s earnings to pay just one dollar to those who claim benefits.

Furthermore, the tax payers at large are investing in assuring that the well being of the beneficiaries is being considered and, like any investment, they deserve the right to know that their contributions are not being wasted away.

Proving yourself to centrelink.
Why see it as if it is something evil.
Any one on benefits must have a budget. Thats how you explain your self.
As far as indig; persons go i totally agree they should be subject to more regs, on what they do with payments.
We are talking about the indig; that live in camps surrounding towns.
Their first priority is for grog. Every thing else comes with what is left, if any.
I would say this is another step in trying to help the indig; to help themself.
The indig; living with whites, surrounded by these camps, would agree.

The issue as I see it reflects the everyday confusion between the nebulous quid pro quo of the social contract and the right to autonomy.

On the one hand, society says that we must all develop into viable economic participants and law abiding citizens, whilst on the other; there is a right to control how you live you life… isn’t there? Well, yes and no. Our right to autonomy is only valid where it does not interfere with another’s personal rights or societies rights.

Normally, we can choose to spend money on leisure activities such as alcohol and entertainments, and then borrow from friends and family until we are paid next. What we cannot do normally, is deny the nutrition of our dependants, so that the budget can be spent mostly or wholly on entertainments, drugs and alcohol. To do this is to breech the child’s basic rights and the expectations of the social contract!

This measure, affects so few on welfare, since most on welfare are responsible and mindful of their rights and duties to themselves and others. Protection Services can no longer be seen as a viable option, since we have learned (have we not?) that taking a neglected child from their family has detrimental impacts on that whole social network in which that family is centered.

Financial Management, as it is called, is not the only measure that will be used to address societal and individual obligations. Truancy is also a serious concern. Family payments will be stopped where a child is found to be habitually skipping school either through there own devices or because the parent is not exercising their duties to their child.

Australians want their children to be properly fed, clothed, housed and educated. Parents and principle carer’s have the autonomy and duty to ensure this happens. And now, if they do not exercise their responsibility and autonomy in this matter, the government will intercede on behalf of the child and society.

Tough Love

Eva has got her knickers in a knot about a few imaginary problems here.

The proposal is that people who neglect their children by not sending them to school regularly without reasonable excuse will have half their income quarantined until they demonstrate some improvement in their parenting. Quaranting will also apply to people who remain on unemployment benefits for long periods. There is no connection with "how ... we prove we are engaged with our community and responsible in our spending", or paying our "utilities bill" late, or whether we bought a "bargain case of booze with Christmas coming up". These furphies of Eva's are irrelevant and simply demonstrate her lack of research about what is being proposed.

The Centrelink staff will not be concerned about, or aware of, such matters, or whether "you bought heaps of fruit and veg at the local market", or whether you are "isolated". They will be concerned about whether you have been sending your child to school regularly, and whether the child is unhealthy because of neglect or even abuse.

The NT Emergency Response version of Income Management of half the welfare cheque was not simply predicated upon reducing "risks of violence to women and children": it was also aimed at reducing neglect of children and regular non-attendance at schools, training courses and jobs.

Time for Eva to wake up a bit about what has been happening in the real of world of isolated settlements, where govenments' inattention to these matters over decades was simply leaving many remote area Indigenous people to subsist by gathering unhealthy welfare funded fast fat, sugar saturated treats and other fully salted food, along with grog and dope, from their local suppliers; and to raise unhealthy children in states of ignorance, rotting out their short lives in welfare-funded cocoons, before sliding into early graves. Let's all hope we don't allow that situation to be re-imposed by the well-meaning but unthinking Eva Coxes of this world.

The only reason Eva has got her knickers in a twist is that single mothers are within the scope of the bill. Eva has spent her career and lots of other peoples' money trying to create a world in which single mothers have complete autonomy and are not accountable or responsible to or for anyone, even their children.

Perhaps whilst she's railing against the inefficiencies and failings of Centrelink she might like to cast an eye on the even more dysfunctional Child Support Agency, which is run out of the same department (DHS).

The aboriginals did not have to go to school for 10,000s years - why now?

Well, you may rightly answer that they neither received welfare payments during those ages.

The problem is that as the white-man destroyed their habitat and introduced new toxins (such as alcohol), those people are no longer able to live naturally on their land. They do not need welfare - they deserve compensation, and that's unconditional.

I am shocked by all the comments above that justify persecution of children and parents, advocating their "right" to be incarcerated in schools and study there what the governments want them to study. If a boy or a girl prefers to sit in nature and watch butterflies, who are you to force them into dreary classrooms? this is not made in good faith for their own good, it is all about politicians wanting to trick people into becoming a useful part of the "work-force" so they gain more power and more money for the corporations that support them.

Yuyutsu,
A large percentage of tax payers would love to see the Aboriginies go back to their land and live their own, un-interupted lives, but, the reality is, they have had a taste of honey and can't leave it alone.

What they want is for us to leave them to do what every they like and live their customary lifestyles,hunt, fish and gather, but they also want the financial support we offer.

Sorry, they can't have their cake and eat it.

<It is hard to find an example of a policy that robs people more of any sense of autonomy or control than nannying their spending.>

Doesn't autonomy mean "existing as an independent entity"?
Surely then, welfare robs people of their autonomy.
How can you be automous if you're reliant on handouts?
How can you rob people of their autonomy if they're not autonomous?

We could much more accurately re-write Eva Cox's statement to say:
It is hard to find an example of a policy that robs people more of any sense of autonomy than welfare.
This would bring us closer to the root of the problem.

<nannying their spending>?
Welfare is nannying.
Nannying people with welfare is acceptable but "nannying their spending" is not?
Surely you've got it the wrong way around.
Shouldn't the non-autonomous individual who is dependent on the nanny state to shield them from the otherwise harsh realities of existence be obliged to demonstrate to their benefactors that they are not wasting the resources which are being extended to them?

If I want a loan from a bank I have to tell them what I intend to buy with it and demonstrate my ability to pay it back.

Welfare doesn't even have to be paid back and Eva Cox thinks that proof of it being spent responsibly is an imposition too far, even when it is demonstrably being wasted.

The grievance industry and its highly paid victimologists are sucking the life out of this country and its people.

Nobody, but nobody who has been unfortunate enough to do anything with Centrelink would have any doubt whatsoever that this government department is the MOST inept, inefficient department and getting worse.

It is atrocious. I had the 'opportunity' to see the workings up close and personal just over 4 years ago and couldn't believe it. If there is any kind of internal auditing at all, which I doubt, it needs to be overhauled. Most probably from the top down.

Sorry, this is not to be taken personally by those who work for this organization as they can only do as well as their organization let's them do the work.

I shudder to think of Centrelink doing any kind of 'checking' what people spend their money on. Not even touching on the subject that this is manifestly bizarre in the first place. Let's use lots and lots of tax payer money to 'police' spending and ensure that no recipient gets any ideas that any maturity beyond five years is tolerated. Weird. It is so weird that it is seen as justified to treat people as childlike.

If there is genuine concern about nutritional and health standards of children why not be more creative and address the health of ALL children? Not just those of a particular group of people. I know plenty of 'rich' kids who are driven everywhere are massively overweight and eat 'crap' food, because mummy gets takeaways.

My children are grown up, but gee, I would have loved it if they could have had a well balanced main meal in the middle of the day at school. Bring in canteens, subsidise those, maybe even supply breakfast and you'd be surprised how many 'irresponsible' people will insist their children go to school. Bingo, two birds with one stone: school attendance and nutrition.

Anyway, hopefully all of you who think this is a good thing are all going to be self-funded retirees and won't need to suck on the public purse once you decide to retire. Tax-payers will want to know that you are spending it on fruit and vegies.

Yvonne is an examplary product of welfare mentality.
Not only should the taxpayer not be able to hold welfare recipients accountable for irresponsible waste of welfare,
but beneficiaries shouldn't even have to spend their welfare money on basics like food.
This is what the nanny state leads to.
Yvonne thinks that decent meals should be provided for breakfast and lunch.
I remember meeting a fellow whose tyres were bald on his car and he was irate because Centrelink required that he attend job interviews but that they weren't prepared to pay for new tyres for his car.
How could he go to job interviews if his tyres were bald?
He was serious and so, I'm afraid, is yvonne.
Were the government to provide breakfast and lunch to the children of people like yvonne, how long would it be before she started demanding that healthy dinners also be provided?
You can't expect people to eat junk food for dinner.
After all, they're entitled to breakfast and lunch.
Why not dinner?
It's discrimination!
I say stop cash welfare payments to people like yvonne.
Give them coupons exchangeable for the bare necessities and throw them in jail if they try to trade them on the black market.

Herman wrote,

"Not only should the taxpayer not be able to hold welfare recipients accountable for irresponsible waste of welfare..."

Well I am a taxpayer, I give happily, I see it as a privilege and believe that welfare-payments are the best thing the government can do with my money. Even if I were able to hold Ivonne accountable, I rather let her do what she wants and erase that Centrelink monster from the face of the earth, and yes - let anyone who asks for that meagre pension receive it, unconditionally and I am more than happy to bear my share of the cost.

Money is not specifically for buying fruit and vegetables - money is for buying one's freedom and dignity in a society that denies freedom and dignity from those who do not have it (I wish it was different, but so long this is the case). Exercising one's freedom may indeed take the form of buying fruit and vegetables, or it may not. Welfare that is given with no strings attached is never wasted because the moment it is given it is already fulfilled - it allows another human to exercise their freedom, and this is what I am gladly paying for. It is none of my business if Ivonne is hungry, nor whether she is responsible or not, but I do care deeply if Ivonne had no choice but to work in slavery conditions because she is hungry.

(P.S. I can only praise the Lord that I was never a centrelink client, nor do I reasonably expect to ever be or receive a pension from the government, not even an age-pension)

Unbelievable! Its easy to pick those people that preach from their ivory city towers. How many of them have seen a 5yo kid in tears at the supermarket checkout because he doesnt have enough 5c coins to buy a single roll of black and gold toilet paper? Thought so. When a child dies because of abuse or neglect, we hear a roaring scream of indignity (which I agree with) that the "system" has failed that child - what are the Govt going to do about it? Well here they have tried to do SOMETHING, but oh no, best not infringe on anyone's rights!

Personally I am a little pissed off about people pissing up on my hard-earned cash, but at the end of the day if they want to drink themselves into an early-grave than thats less time that I'll have to support them for. What REALLY annoys me is when said person has children, who suffer for the faults of the parent (or carer). Fine, dont restrict the spending, but then at least take away the kids so that have a chance at getting a bath most days, and antibiotics when they need it (gee, not to mention a piece of fresh fruit now nad then). The author really shows her city bias - bugger all choice on where to buy "bargains" in most country towns - take what there is and then tough luck.

Yuyutsu,
You're confusing charity with welfare.
One can be as charitable as one likes with one's own money.
Feel free to give of your own money with no strings attached.
However, the dispersion of taxpayer funds should be administered with the utmost accountability.
It's easy to be generous with other people's money.
This is one of the principle appeals of socialism,
a feel-good ideology which calls for the redistribution of the collective wealth with minimal personal impact.
I don't care how generous you want to be, as long as it's not with everybody else's money, including mine.
Charity is a personal decision.
Welfare is a collective decision.

<money is for buying one's freedom and dignity in a society that denies freedom and dignity from those who do not have it>
This is tripe.
You can't buy freedom and dignity with money
and this society isn't denying freedom and dignity from anyone.

<erase that Centrelink monster from the face of the earth>
What are you thinking?
Who would administer welfare?

<let anyone who asks for that meagre pension receive it>
Well that's a good way to blow the budget.
If people who didn't need it received it there would be less available for those who truly need it.

Please come back down to earth.

HermanYutic writes;
,How could he go to job interviews if his tyres were bald?
He was serious and so, I'm afraid, is yvonne.

That's a 'cop out' if ever I head one! try catching a train, or bus.

Yuyutsu, says;
Money is not specifically for buying fruit and vegetables - money is for buying one's freedom and dignity in a society that denies freedom and dignity from those who do not have it

Yes, but when one earns it! Hand outs should be respected for what they are.

I recon you all have rocks in ya head.
If you are entitled to a pension or other payment so be it.
Once you have donated your tax to the govt; It is our govt; that distributes it in a manner they feel is necessary.
For some reason you pick welfare to be accounted for, why not roads, defense, or any thing else that is funded by your tax.
You are not the only generation to pay tax.
So you can sleep at night i suggest you forget about the amount of tax you have donated. When all funded costs are added up what proportion of your tax goes to welfare, and yet you have chosen to attack welfare as if it were the only funded cost your tax covers.

Desmond,Rehctub here.

I don't know if your post was aimed at me but, I think you may be missing the point.

There is not shame in receiving welfare, esspecially if you have worked and paid your taxes. What most people are concerned with is the fact that so much welfare is wasted on grog, cigs and the pokies.

Now on the other hand, if parents receive welfare for their children and, their children are well cared for, then do what you like with what ever money you have left. But don't deprive your kids of the support that is clearly aimed at them, esspecially when they suffer due to their parents inabillity to better manage their situation.

Now as for pensioners receiving welfare. By all means waste your money, but please don't then come whinging about how tough life is as a pensioner.