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.