*RehTub* I believe that your gross generalisations do not do anything to further your argument and I have had quite a bit to do with this area of administrative law.

In my *Mrs X* example, I can tell you that she neither smokes nor drinks.

Now that she has been taught, she cuts the families hair herself with her own clippers and has purchased a cool $5 hair curling wand and accessories kit from the car park market.

Additionally, she has been taught to cook courtesy of the "Golden Wattle Cook Book" and a copy of "The Country Women's Association Cooking and Household Hints" book, and is now well away when possible from the likes of Coles & Woolworths (what a joke, how many people do you want to pay for your apple?) and into the local and farmers markets.

As well as other mentioned contributions, I assisted her to get off credit cards and onto debit cards and gave the in the service of the banks wig parasites the long stave of the "Financial Services OmbudsPersons."

Could she have lifted herself up without assistance? Possibly not, but how many of us make a modest contribution to assist others pro bono?

..

Bare in mind, that once you deduct time for tending her kid, traditional cooking, severe departmental red tape obligations and requirements, regular medical appointments and of course her limited energies on account of her psychiatric disability (not to be confused with an intellectual disability) and she is for the most part spent.

However, inwardly she wants to do more for her family and she is currently being assisted to do some casual work hemming garments for a bit of supplementary $, though she can't make much before the department will start docking her pay, though admittedly she is far better off than those on AusStudy.

Of course, if she didn't have accommodation, her family would be screwed.

I am baffled, honestly, how did the thread divert to current payments value.
Or thoughts that it is my intention to target other than fraud?
I too want us in the black, no reasonable person should propose getting further in debt, at such a time as this.
Reform, it will come and it must, can any one,at all? defend not acting against fraud.
Can some one tell me why we should not return to regional support, a thing known as pork barreling but used by both sides.
To employee in local government and such, rather than pay welfare.
Every cent we save,every job we reserve, is a step toward a more usable welfare.
We need reforms.

I am baffled, honestly, how did the thread divert to current payments value.

Belly!....now this is the first time I agree with you:)

Iam not saying another word.

I have a lot of reading to do;)

cc

Dream on, if Mrs X was to have her welfare quarantined, it should not other her at all, as she is one who sounds deserving of the benefit.

Any list I put together, telling of true fraud, crime, in this area, will be seen by some as unfair targeting of those in need.
Take the we don't eat much family,mentioned earlier.
All on social security, even the kids.
A daughter, wed with 3 kids found two ways to increase income.
Find some one to say she had Aboriginal blood [whole family, BOTH SIDES! followed].
Then go home to mum! leave husband in the house alone, until night fall.
Kids get carers leave, for Gran, but live far away.
PO box numbers? no such thing! mail gos to one part of family false home address, then distributed.
Side tax free car repairs, car re birthing, paid annual leave after police take action.
Shop lifting,yes kids learn early and uncles take the goods.
Radical? an exception? yes true,but not in small numbers such folk exist, on the SS.
Would it not be great if the old lady down the road rugged up because she is cold and can not afford a heater had one, bills paid by the savings!
What if long term unemployed had a job, community based, mowing her lawn, cleaning the trees out of creeks and making back packer/tourist camping areas around the country?
Reform is not bad, truth not to be avoided,my worst times in my life can be seen looking back as those brief times I was not working.

Belly you say: "I am baffled, honestly, how did the thread divert to current payments value.
Or thoughts that it is my intention to target other than fraud?"

There are those on here who through their dislike of social welfare, these people are basically individualist who's attitude is "I worked for what I get, its all mine." They fail to realise that in our society we all benefit from 'social welfare' it may not be in the form of a direct payment like a pension, which is the most visible kind of welfare, but could not it be argued that government spending of company tax for the benefit of all, is also a form of welfare spending.
To justify their stance against direct welfare recipients, the individualist will refer to a specific instance like "the young bloke who spends his day surfing the waves while collecting the dole." then generalise that all welfare recipients are 'bludgers' and should be dealt with accordingly. This rational gives the individualist the comfort knowing that only the bad welfare recipients are being targeted.
I agree many welfare recipients have 'issues' often suffering from dis-functionality, through excess drinking, the taking of drugs,which results in the neglect of children etc, "but cutting them off" in the way the hard line individualist would have would do nothing to fix the problems these people cause in society but most likely exacerbate them, more crime, increased anti social behavior etc.
Society could wheel the big stick. introduce draconian laws, more jails, more public institutions, all to deal with the under class. In fact we could load some of them into ships and sail away to the South Pacific and set up a penal colony.