The backlash is about an article written in Quadrant way back in March 2015. Here is some of it,

"DAVID ARCHIBALD

Lifestyle Choices? Here’s a Few More

Why focus only on the cost of supporting Aboriginal communities in godforsaken locations when so many other Australians have their impractical and expensive preferences richly subsidised. Be they single mums or "disabled" Islamist firebrands, should the much-taxed rest of us pay for them?

We spent $30.3 billion on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the 2013 financial year, more than what is currently spent on defence. How did we get to this sorry pass? Aboriginal tribes wandered around the continent for millennia. Occasionally they were joined by others. For example, there was in influx of boat people from southern India 4,230 years ago that has contributed about 10% of the modern Aboriginal gene pool in northern Australia. After European settlement, missionaries went out into the desert to save souls. They handed out free flour, so Aboriginal groups came out of the desert because that beat having to search for dinner.

Then Gough Whitlam became prime minister and he resented the role of the churches in running Aboriginal missions. So he nationalised them. What had been done very cheaply is now accomplished at great expense, compounded by a romantic notion of Aboriginals living on the land. So the descendants of Whitlam have pushed Aboriginal settlements as far out into the desert as they can.
..

Now comes federally funded childcare. This is a lifestyle choice. Looking after children is very labour-intensive. We evolved that way, with a prolonged childhood, to allow for synapse refinement in our big, energy-consuming brains. Some mothers elect to look after their children themselves, or do so because distance from a job makes work impractical. Mothers who do work are, in effect, cross-subsidising those who also leave their children to the care of strangers. If society wishes to encourage childbearing, it should reward that with tax rebates to the childbearing pair and leave it at that.

That is a few for starters. There are plenty more."https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2015/03/lifestyle-choices-heres/

Link,

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2015/03/lifestyle-choices-heres/

Paul, few would disagree that while every Muslim is not a terrorist, pretty much every terrorist is a Muslim. So for me, the risk of allowing just ONE potential terrorist in is one too many.

It is not our religion, it is there's and if they choose a non Muslim country to resettle into, then they should have to forgo their religion, it truley is that simple.

As for you disabillity guy, there is another simple answer, STOP PAYING THEM CASH.

So long as they are given cash that can be wasted, many will waste it.

"while every Muslim is not a terrorist, pretty much every terrorist is a Muslim. So for me, the risk of allowing just ONE potential terrorist in is one too many."

Butch, at fist glance that may seem reasonable, but the fact is the vast majority, more than 99% are not terrorists. Taking that attitude you unfairly target one group, and risk alienating even more from that group. Because you see Muslims as different to you, then you do not see yourself as a possible target for discrimination. The reality in the world today is Muslims themselves are the biggest target by far for terrorists, who also happen to be Muslim. I am in no way a support or apologists for the Islamic religion, it makes no sense to me what so ever, but it does not seem to be the root cause of terrorism, more an excuse to mask the real reasons people act as they do. If they did not have the commonality of the Islamic faith to hide behind, they would find something else to justify their cause.

One of the worse acts of terrorism in the Western world was the attack by the Norwegian Anders Breivik, which left 77 dead. Do you suggest we also target Norwegians. Sexual abuse of children by clergy in our society seems mostly confined to Catholic clergy, should we single out Catholic clergy for special attention, after all every priest and brother is a potential pedophile.

What about the Muslims who are already in Australia? Do you want them to walk around with a distinguishing crescent symbol sown onto their clothing? The Nazi's had Jews wear the Star of David to distinguish them from the general population, and it was very effective. Fortunately you are not like them. It is not crazed radials that allow society to degenerate into a perverted totalitarian state, it is the ordinary people who will stand ideally by and allow it to happen.

Hi Butch, your suggestion that 'Centrelink' payment for some be broken down into two components, one; a debit card which can only be used to purchase non alcoholic products and services has merit, the second payment should be to a bank account with free access as per normal. This system should not be universal, for example people who have no such problems with drugs and alcohol, like many old age pensioners and others, should not be subjected to that system. Nor do I see it necessary to limit tobacco products, although I am anti smoking myself.

In no way should it be used as a big stick to belt the disadvantaged.

Below ia info on the government trial being conducted at the moment.

https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programmes-services/welfare-conditionality/cashless-debit-card-trial-overview

Unofficially, a system has operated in the community where some who cannot manage money, through a lack of mental capacity to do so, have rent paid and other bills, leaving them $100/fortnight spending money which they can draw on.

Butch you are happy with individual rules. Now the cost of that would be another social security bill on its own. The rules say a husband or wife cannot be carer for the other. The mentality of your beloved govt; is the rules are the rules without exception.
It is ok for them to get around in lear jets, because it is entitlement. But to bend a rule it takes court cases, and most in need cannot do that.
You are just having one of your grimy whinges again.