11 April 2013

Yvette Berry goes Federal Labor over Single Parent Payment Cuts

| johnboy
Join the conversation
33

In 16 years of reading ACT media releases I have never once seen an MLA go their own party at Federal Level quite like new MLA Yvette Berry is getting stuck in to the Gillard Government:

Member for Ginninderra Yvette Berry MLA, is this evening calling on her Federal Labor colleagues to reconsider its decision to cut the single parent payment which took effect in January this year.

“I know a lot of single mums and dads in my electorate, especially around West Belconnen, who are struggling to make ends meet and I think the cut is having an unnecessary impact on family’s budgets” Ms Berry said.

The changes to the single parent payment mean that when a single parent’s child turns eight, they lose their entitlement to the payment. This amounts to a reduction of approximately $100 a week.

“While I understand that the Government needs to balance their spending, I do not believe that this should come at the expense of those who are doing it tough in our community.

“I hope when the Budget comes around that my Federal colleagues can find a way to restore this payment” Ms Berry concluded.

Join the conversation

33
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I can’t wait for the next cycle of poverty vs cars thread…

But yeah poverty, unemployment and single parenting aren’t always planned. Plus what’s with the 8 year line? Leaving children unsupervised is considered abuse if they are under 12. Sure 8 year olds can be sent to the park to run along and play but they need to know where to find their adult carer.

wildturkeycanoe said :

You people are a bunch of heartless brutes. Sure there is a proportion of single mums out there who fit your steroetype, but there are also those who are legitimately doing things tough.
Due to a lot of slack Mums and Dads who just up and leave when times are tough, there are some single parents who find themselves alone out of no fault of their own. They then have to choose how to get by.
Eg. Dad works 40h week, 7 to 3:30. Little tyke is 4. Mum took off with the neighbor to Vanuatu.
What does Dad do? Has to tell boss he can’t start work till 9:30 after dropping little tyke to pre-school and has to finish at 2:30, or pay for before and after care? Either way, his weekly income just got slashed substantially, or he lost his job altogether, or the outside hours care is all booked out. The Mum has now taken legal action to claim half the house and assets as hers. Judge believes the fake sob story about abuse and Dad now has to sell the house and find a rental. Unable to find a job that gives him the hours he needs, Dad is now living on the funds the pollies are about to slash and can’t get a government house due to the lack of availability. His efforts to find a rental without an income are fruitless [not that he could afford them anyway], so now they live in a tent at Cotter camping ground.
Still feel like putting this single parent into the same box as the Mum with 3 kids in beautiful house and nice car? Not all welfare recipients are as portrayed in the news.
[The example above is not based on anyone, just a possible scenario.]

Dad should have possibly flirted with a family court clerk so that he could possibly get a hypothetical misogynist magistrate in a bowtie. Also not based on anyone.

Tetranitrate said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

You people are a bunch of heartless brutes. Sure there is a proportion of single mums out there who fit your steroetype, but there are also those who are legitimately doing things tough.
Due to a lot of slack Mums and Dads who just up and leave when times are tough, there are some single parents who find themselves alone out of no fault of their own. They then have to choose how to get by.
Eg. Dad works 40h week, 7 to 3:30. Little tyke is 4. Mum took off with the neighbor to Vanuatu.
What does Dad do? Has to tell boss he can’t start work till 9:30 after dropping little tyke to pre-school and has to finish at 2:30, or pay for before and after care? Either way, his weekly income just got slashed substantially, or he lost his job altogether, or the outside hours care is all booked out. The Mum has now taken legal action to claim half the house and assets as hers. Judge believes the fake sob story about abuse and Dad now has to sell the house and find a rental. Unable to find a job that gives him the hours he needs, Dad is now living on the funds the pollies are about to slash and can’t get a government house due to the lack of availability. His efforts to find a rental without an income are fruitless [not that he could afford them anyway], so now they live in a tent at Cotter camping ground.
Still feel like putting this single parent into the same box as the Mum with 3 kids in beautiful house and nice car? Not all welfare recipients are as portrayed in the news.
[The example above is not based on anyone, just a possible scenario.]

absolutely agreed – I did a fair bit of volunteering with St Vincent de Paul a year or so ago, and anecdotally the usual situation is indeed where one parent has upped and left, or died, or has had drug/alcohol/mental health issues and is out of the picture for that reason.
The comments blaming people for their ‘lifestyle choices’ are bloody absurd and completely divorced from reality.

IF people are in public/community housing they generally tend to do OK on government benefits, but if they’re trapped in the private rental market it’s essentially impossible for them to get by without help from charities if they’ve got kids because the rent alone takes up most of their meager income. They’re the ones in the most dire straights.

It’s a relief to see that not every user one on this site is a soulless bastard 🙂

Jim Jones said :

Masquara said :

Anyone who thinks living on any form of welfare in Australia is hardship is in la-la-land. The other week Canberra 7.30 featured a sole parent who was supposedly living in poverty. She was actually living in a three-bedroom house with a garden, courtesy of the ACT ratepayers, and had a 14 and a 15 year old living at home. All three were fat (that is relevant: read on). Her cute little 4WD car was newer than mine! The week before a documentary had been screened on the telly, on poverty in Florida in the United States. Those folk were actually skinny from barely being able to feed themselves – contrasted with the obese family just mentioned. Children had been taken away from some of the families, as they couldn’t feed them. There were breadwinners earning $3.00 an hour and walking miles to work and back – one of whom had been a middle manager in the ‘burbs until two years before. They were living in single motel rooms – in one case, a family of six – with $30 for all living expenses other than what food stamps covered, after the motel room rent was paid. What I particularly noticed from the doco was that not ONE of these poor folk whinged. Not one complaint. Get real, Australian welfare beneficiaries! You are in clover compared to anyone else in the world bar perhaps two of the Scandinavian nations.

Now *that* is the compassion and empathy we’ve come to expect from the Liberal Party.

Like the compassion and empathy shown by Gillard?

Remembering who slashed the welfare entitlements, that is…

I’ve not forgotten. A pox on both their houses.

But Masquara is the Liberal Party representative around these parts.

Tetranitrate1:01 pm 13 Apr 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

You people are a bunch of heartless brutes. Sure there is a proportion of single mums out there who fit your steroetype, but there are also those who are legitimately doing things tough.
Due to a lot of slack Mums and Dads who just up and leave when times are tough, there are some single parents who find themselves alone out of no fault of their own. They then have to choose how to get by.
Eg. Dad works 40h week, 7 to 3:30. Little tyke is 4. Mum took off with the neighbor to Vanuatu.
What does Dad do? Has to tell boss he can’t start work till 9:30 after dropping little tyke to pre-school and has to finish at 2:30, or pay for before and after care? Either way, his weekly income just got slashed substantially, or he lost his job altogether, or the outside hours care is all booked out. The Mum has now taken legal action to claim half the house and assets as hers. Judge believes the fake sob story about abuse and Dad now has to sell the house and find a rental. Unable to find a job that gives him the hours he needs, Dad is now living on the funds the pollies are about to slash and can’t get a government house due to the lack of availability. His efforts to find a rental without an income are fruitless [not that he could afford them anyway], so now they live in a tent at Cotter camping ground.
Still feel like putting this single parent into the same box as the Mum with 3 kids in beautiful house and nice car? Not all welfare recipients are as portrayed in the news.
[The example above is not based on anyone, just a possible scenario.]

absolutely agreed – I did a fair bit of volunteering with St Vincent de Paul a year or so ago, and anecdotally the usual situation is indeed where one parent has upped and left, or died, or has had drug/alcohol/mental health issues and is out of the picture for that reason.
The comments blaming people for their ‘lifestyle choices’ are bloody absurd and completely divorced from reality.

IF people are in public/community housing they generally tend to do OK on government benefits, but if they’re trapped in the private rental market it’s essentially impossible for them to get by without help from charities if they’ve got kids because the rent alone takes up most of their meager income. They’re the ones in the most dire straights.

HiddenDragon12:55 pm 13 Apr 13

DrKoresh said :

My dad raised me as a single parent, and for a significant chunk of my childhood we were living below the national poverty line, so I think a lot of people here don’t have a goddamn clue what they’re talking about. I don’t understand why the cuts are being made to single parents, not childless singles and couples, it’s a spit in the eye of people who have one of the hardest jobs there is.

Not to mention the poor kid, turning 8 years old and suddenly having even less money to get by one than they did before. Most of you lot seem to take you wealth for granted, so I’d guess you don’t have any idea how hard it can be for a child who can’t afford even the basic stuff they see all their friends playing with or to go on school camps and excursions. This welfare cut makes me really mad, so I’m going to stop now before I degenerate into a lot of rambling and swearing

A Labor government worthy of the name wouldn’t be just tinkering with top-end superannuation, they’d be looking at all the legalised lurks and rorts including a capital gains tax system which, as I understand it, allows people who make their living through asset price speculation to pay tax at about half the rate (if that) of people who do real work for a living.

My dad raised me as a single parent, and for a significant chunk of my childhood we were living below the national poverty line, so I think a lot of people here don’t have a goddamn clue what they’re talking about. I don’t understand why the cuts are being made to single parents, not childless singles and couples, it’s a spit in the eye of people who have one of the hardest jobs there is.

Not to mention the poor kid, turning 8 years old and suddenly having even less money to get by one than they did before. Most of you lot seem to take you wealth for granted, so I’d guess you don’t have any idea how hard it can be for a child who can’t afford even the basic stuff they see all their friends playing with or to go on school camps and excursions. This welfare cut makes me really mad, so I’m going to stop now before I degenerate into a lot of rambling and swearing

HiddenDragon11:31 am 13 Apr 13

With this morning’s contributions from wildturkeycanoe and Jim Jones, it’s good to see some balance coming back into the debate. Reading and reflecting on the statistics regarding divorce, particularly divorces involving children (with at least similar patterns presumably applying to de facto relationships), and the trends in unemployment and job vacancies, might be useful for some.

Whatever her motives, I still admire Yvette Berry for breaking ranks on this issue.

Masquara said :

Anyone who thinks living on any form of welfare in Australia is hardship is in la-la-land. The other week Canberra 7.30 featured a sole parent who was supposedly living in poverty. She was actually living in a three-bedroom house with a garden, courtesy of the ACT ratepayers, and had a 14 and a 15 year old living at home. All three were fat (that is relevant: read on). Her cute little 4WD car was newer than mine! The week before a documentary had been screened on the telly, on poverty in Florida in the United States. Those folk were actually skinny from barely being able to feed themselves – contrasted with the obese family just mentioned. Children had been taken away from some of the families, as they couldn’t feed them. There were breadwinners earning $3.00 an hour and walking miles to work and back – one of whom had been a middle manager in the ‘burbs until two years before. They were living in single motel rooms – in one case, a family of six – with $30 for all living expenses other than what food stamps covered, after the motel room rent was paid. What I particularly noticed from the doco was that not ONE of these poor folk whinged. Not one complaint. Get real, Australian welfare beneficiaries! You are in clover compared to anyone else in the world bar perhaps two of the Scandinavian nations.

Now *that* is the compassion and empathy we’ve come to expect from the Liberal Party.

wildturkeycanoe7:29 am 13 Apr 13

You people are a bunch of heartless brutes. Sure there is a proportion of single mums out there who fit your steroetype, but there are also those who are legitimately doing things tough.
Due to a lot of slack Mums and Dads who just up and leave when times are tough, there are some single parents who find themselves alone out of no fault of their own. They then have to choose how to get by.
Eg. Dad works 40h week, 7 to 3:30. Little tyke is 4. Mum took off with the neighbor to Vanuatu.
What does Dad do? Has to tell boss he can’t start work till 9:30 after dropping little tyke to pre-school and has to finish at 2:30, or pay for before and after care? Either way, his weekly income just got slashed substantially, or he lost his job altogether, or the outside hours care is all booked out. The Mum has now taken legal action to claim half the house and assets as hers. Judge believes the fake sob story about abuse and Dad now has to sell the house and find a rental. Unable to find a job that gives him the hours he needs, Dad is now living on the funds the pollies are about to slash and can’t get a government house due to the lack of availability. His efforts to find a rental without an income are fruitless [not that he could afford them anyway], so now they live in a tent at Cotter camping ground.
Still feel like putting this single parent into the same box as the Mum with 3 kids in beautiful house and nice car? Not all welfare recipients are as portrayed in the news.
[The example above is not based on anyone, just a possible scenario.]

Anyone who thinks living on any form of welfare in Australia is hardship is in la-la-land. The other week Canberra 7.30 featured a sole parent who was supposedly living in poverty. She was actually living in a three-bedroom house with a garden, courtesy of the ACT ratepayers, and had a 14 and a 15 year old living at home. All three were fat (that is relevant: read on). Her cute little 4WD car was newer than mine! The week before a documentary had been screened on the telly, on poverty in Florida in the United States. Those folk were actually skinny from barely being able to feed themselves – contrasted with the obese family just mentioned. Children had been taken away from some of the families, as they couldn’t feed them. There were breadwinners earning $3.00 an hour and walking miles to work and back – one of whom had been a middle manager in the ‘burbs until two years before. They were living in single motel rooms – in one case, a family of six – with $30 for all living expenses other than what food stamps covered, after the motel room rent was paid. What I particularly noticed from the doco was that not ONE of these poor folk whinged. Not one complaint. Get real, Australian welfare beneficiaries! You are in clover compared to anyone else in the world bar perhaps two of the Scandinavian nations.

Welfare always will be a touchy subject and my opinions on this matter make people receiving benefits extremely angry !!

Welfare shouldn’t be a “one fits all” package. In reality – it should be a case by case package designed to get single parents and the unemployed (sans children) into work. Welfare is meant to be SHORT TERM financial assistance during hard times. Being a single parent, is not a hard time and welfare shouldn’t be treated as a means to live.

When it comes to unemployment payments, Centrelink should be DECREASING payments the longer the individual person has been on the benefits. For example: 100% of payments for the first 12 months, 90% for 12-18months, 80% for 18-24 months and so on and so forth. Over time they won’t be receiving enough money to live – therefore forcing them into the workforce.

Now – When it comes to single parent payments – why on Earth does the Government keep throwing more money at SINGLE parents when they pop out more children. This just encourages that vicious cycle that a minority of “dole bludgers” enter by continually having children for more money.
As JB pointed out in #10 we’ll have to accept that children come along in ways not always planned. . Why should the Government pay for that ? If they are already seeking assistance for one or more children they already cannot afford to support, why does the Government give them MORE money ? Centrelink should FREEZE payments based on your circumstances when you applied for benefits. (this should apply to public housing aswell). If you receive welfare payments for yourself and 3 children, and get given a 4 bedroom house – why do taxpayers then need to fund that 4th and 5th child you may “accidently” have and then upgrade you to the 6 bedroom mcmansion you harass Public Housing for ? I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it. If you’re already on benefits – YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN !
Before people ark up and claim that some people don’t have the skills to find a high enough paying jobs to survive / feed children – Centrelink provides access to attend certain CIT courses FOR FREE !!!!! Yes you heard me FREE. (or at a cost of 50%). There is no excuse for anyone receiving unemployment benefits OR single parenting payments to not receive further education to help them get a job.

Yes – I have lived off unemployment benefits before
No – I do not have children
Yes – I know of single parents who struggle on benefits
Yes – I also know of MORE single parents who get off their arse and work to provide for their children instead of relying on handouts.

Agreed Damien, this seems to go against some of Labor’s core values, and Kim Carr has blasted the Govt since being relieved of his duties at Human Services minister, saying that he couldn’t support the changes.

So I guess we can safely assume that Labor has well and truly crossed the middle line and is headed towards a populist right-wing agenda to pander to the uneducated masses.

i never expected a Labor government to do something like this. Im amazed there wasnt a caucus revolt.

Masquara said :

Parents with kids eight years old and over should be working (yeah Nicola Roxon that means you too). Newstart plus allowances allowed for the kids by world standards it is NOT living in poverty! Let alone developing countries, try being poor in the United States, living on food stamps in a motel room with $30 bucks left over after the rent, then get back to us for sympathy if you dare. Australia has a very generous welfare system.

You never fail to have nothing to say do you?

miz said :

Even conservative economists now reckon the dole should be raised. It would have been smarter to increase the dole to sole parent levels instead of the other way round. And if they couldn’t afford that, better to have done nothing and not be seen as clawing money from vulnerable people.

Instead of a one size fits all dole, we should look at things like compulsory employment insurance (or a super style unemployment scheme) or a higher rate of dole for the first 12months unemployment.

Seeing as the vast majority of unemployed people find work within a year, we need to find a way to make that transition from one job to another easier. For the longer term unemployed, they should get lower payments and more training opportunities. Carrot and stick.

pink little birdie9:54 am 12 Apr 13

Wasn’t the most recent change to the sole parent payment about removing a grandfathering clause?

Didn’t Howard say that for all sole parents of children born after 2007 they would move onto newstart when the youngest child turns 8?

So Gillards change was about applying it to all single parents when they turned 8 not 16 (which was the previous age) and seeing as most sole parents are working/studying by then it really only effects a very small number of single parents anyway.

(my mum is/was a single parent (widower) and by the time I turned 8 she was back in uni which was 18 months after she became a widower)

johnboy said :

banco said :

So the rest of Australia owes them a living due to their life choices?

Well until we licence childbirth (and doing so instantly begin the depopulation of the continent and the end of the australian nation) we’ll have to accept that children come along in ways not always planned.

Now we’ve got young mothers with young children and less than ideal family situations.

Which is cheaper in the long run?

1) Cut their weekly payments? In turn leading to disruptive children in school (and one disruptive child drags the whole class down), and down the track massive health costs in our hospitals

2) Give them a bit of money now that stops them burdening the rest of the system down the track and raises productive future australians?

It’s not that hard now is it?

Offering sterilisation payments for people on welfare would be even cheaper and far more effective than the lucky dip of parental payments to achieve productive future Australians.

The intergenerational welfare cycle is a tricky one to combat.

johnboy said :

banco said :

So the rest of Australia owes them a living due to their life choices?

Well until we licence childbirth (and doing so instantly begin the depopulation of the continent and the end of the australian nation) we’ll have to accept that children come along in ways not always planned.

Now we’ve got young mothers with young children and less than ideal family situations.

Which is cheaper in the long run?

1) Cut their weekly payments? In turn leading to disruptive children in school (and one disruptive child drags the whole class down), and down the track massive health costs in our hospitals

2) Give them a bit of money now that stops them burdening the rest of the system down the track and raises productive future australians?

It’s not that hard now is it?

One only need look at the wonderful KIM’S,after all their benevolence is something that we should all aspire to!

johnboy said :

Which is cheaper in the long run?

1) Cut their weekly payments? In turn leading to disruptive children in school (and one disruptive child drags the whole class down), and down the track massive health costs in our hospitals

2) Give them a bit of money now that stops them burdening the rest of the system down the track and raises productive future australians?

It’s not that hard now is it?

I guess that depends on whether you believe that number 2 is what actually results from the extra payments. Or, for that matter, that these are the only two options available. Surely it would be better to spend the equivalent sum of money on targeted social welfare programs, rather than just hand it out carte blanche to people who’ve already shown that they’re not brilliant at long-term decision-making?

HiddenDragon9:26 am 12 Apr 13

The comments quoted above are rather mild, which probably says something about what a timorous bunch our local pollies are in relation to their federal confrere (of the same party). I assume the federal policy is about saving a few bucks, fitting in with Gillard’s “setting the alarm clock” mantra, and, to an extent, distinguishing themselves from the Greens – who will probably get the first preference votes of some of the affected people, with Labor still getting many of the second preferences.

I’ll second the essence of JB’s comments at #10, and just add that licencing parents was, as I recall it, suggested by Sir Humphrey in an episode of Yes Minister, so, on the principle that life (often) imitates art, there is a fair chance that there are people in this town who have given reasonably serious thought to that idea.

gungsuperstar9:19 am 12 Apr 13

johnboy said :

banco said :

So the rest of Australia owes them a living due to their life choices?

Well until we licence childbirth (and doing so instantly begin the depopulation of the continent and the end of the australian nation) we’ll have to accept that children come along in ways not always planned.

Now we’ve got young mothers with young children and less than ideal family situations.

Which is cheaper in the long run?

1) Cut their weekly payments? In turn leading to disruptive children in school (and one disruptive child drags the whole class down), and down the track massive health costs in our hospitals

2) Give them a bit of money now that stops them burdening the rest of the system down the track and raises productive future australians?

It’s not that hard now is it?

The problem here John is that we know that poverty and welfare dependency are cyclical.

It’s a complete oversimplification to assume that children whose parents are forced to work are disruptive, and even moreso to assume that “by giving them a bit of money now” will result in more productive Australians – the cycle of poverty proves this.

banco said :

So the rest of Australia owes them a living due to their life choices?

Well until we licence childbirth (and doing so instantly begin the depopulation of the continent and the end of the australian nation) we’ll have to accept that children come along in ways not always planned.

Now we’ve got young mothers with young children and less than ideal family situations.

Which is cheaper in the long run?

1) Cut their weekly payments? In turn leading to disruptive children in school (and one disruptive child drags the whole class down), and down the track massive health costs in our hospitals

2) Give them a bit of money now that stops them burdening the rest of the system down the track and raises productive future australians?

It’s not that hard now is it?

Perhaps Yvette Berry should be working within the ACT Government to increase school hours to match business hours. If the kids had to be on site between 8:30am and 5:00pm, then it’d be a lot easier for parents of working age children to find employment. ‘

The kids will hate it, but they don’t vote. The teachers may protest, but they will understand in the context of parents on newstart.

Heck, we may then be able to knock a year or two off the end of the school process, and get our kids into the workforce quicker. Alternatively, we might even have enough time then to teach them how to read and write properly before they graduate. The possibilities are endless.

Tetranitrate said :

bd84 said :

Perhaps she should help her electorate members get off their butt and get a job now that they have no valid excuse not to work, with their kids at school for 6+ hours a day. Then they could be like the rest of us and not rely on government handouts.

So when was the last time you hired a single parent to work within school hours?

What was so sick about that decision wasn’t adding job-search requirements anyway. The government could have easily added those to the parenting payments and patted themselves on the back, job well done.
They decided instead to shunt these people straight onto newstart, which pays significantly less, as part of a miserly effort to try and push the budget into the black for purely political (not economic) reasons.

I’ve hired parents previously for part time school hour work. There are jobs out there, they just have to keep looking. And its not like Newstart is the only payment these people get so its not like they’re living in complete poverty.
I think this is a good welfare cut, its just a shame the government doesn’t have the balls to cut the welfare of far more well off people as well.

Huh, the feds are finally realising there are a lot of sole parents out there, and they vote.

The govt has unsuccessfully tried to dress this policy up as ‘we are just helping them get work’, but most are working anyway and any extra earnings are just deducted, leaving a massive net loss due to the pension cuts. I lived thru the Howard ‘mutual obligation’ years as a sole parent with a disabled child, and it was not pretty. This is worse. I have written to Minister Macklin and got a reply recently – thinking about posting though it is a very personal letter and not sure if this it the forum given it is a fed matter.

Even conservative economists now reckon the dole should be raised. It would have been smarter to increase the dole to sole parent levels instead of the other way round. And if they couldn’t afford that, better to have done nothing and not be seen as clawing money from vulnerable people.

gungsuperstar3:14 am 12 Apr 13

I’m a massive fan of Yvette – but she’s pulled the wrong reign here. My view is that the Labor party supports (or at least should support) welfare as a safety net, not as an a form of payment for parents who choose not to work. It supports individual liberty through (secure) work, and encourages work as the best way for people to be engaged with their community and with their own welfare, and to provide opportunity for themselves and their families.

“Going” Federal Labor over cuts to welfare was the wrong tack here – the right tack would’ve been to call on the Federal Government to find methods to support and encourage employers to hire parents returning to the workforce, and who wish to do so on part time hours (which I believe forms part of the package, although I’m not entirely across it).

Without wanting to generalise the “welfare dependents” among Yvette’s West Belconnen constituency, there is no way in the world that the area can achieve it’s potential and provide the best opportunities to kids (which is what she campaigned on) simply by supporting an ongoing reliance on welfare.

At what age does she think parents should be returning to work, if not 8? 12 (high school?) 18?

I know there’s a lot more to being a stay at home mum than sitting at home watching Ellen – but as far as I can tell, an 8 year old child is gaining more hope and opportunity, and gaining a much better role model from having a parent who works, as opposed to having a parent who lives off welfare.

Masquara said :

Parents with kids eight years old and over should be working (yeah Nicola Roxon that means you too). Newstart plus allowances allowed for the kids by world standards it is NOT living in poverty! Let alone developing countries, try being poor in the United States, living on food stamps in a motel room with $30 bucks left over after the rent, then get back to us for sympathy if you dare. Australia has a very generous welfare system.

But this is wrong, and can only come from the mouth of someone who has never had to use the welfare safety net. I was fortunate (?) to live in a small, cheap (compared to Canberra) little town when I spent 6 months unemployed – it obviously made it harder to get a job (hence my move to Canberra), but at least I could survive. Given the cost of living in Canberra, living solely on welfare in Canberra would absolutely result on you living in poverty.

I don’t support massive increases to welfare for all the reasons I listed above – but there does need to be a recognition that not all welfare recipients do so by choice, and that it’s a bloody hard life trying to provide for yourself, much less for kids when you’re on welfare.

So I guess people might think twice before becoming a parent?

There are plenty of parents that work 40+ hours then try to make up other time with their children.

Parents who choose to spend all day with their kids instead of working, getting rewarded for it.

The net effect of loads of welfare for single parents is having more single parents just to get welfare.

If we make it so you can choose to be on welfare or have a job, that’s only going to create more welfare. Having a child shouldn’t be seen as a money making opportunity.

Tetranitrate said :

bd84 said :

Perhaps she should help her electorate members get off their butt and get a job now that they have no valid excuse not to work, with their kids at school for 6+ hours a day. Then they could be like the rest of us and not rely on government handouts.

So when was the last time you hired a single parent to work within school hours?

What was so sick about that decision wasn’t adding job-search requirements anyway. The government could have easily added those to the parenting payments and patted themselves on the back, job well done.
They decided instead to shunt these people straight onto newstart, which pays significantly less, as part of a miserly effort to try and push the budget into the black for purely political (not economic) reasons.

So the rest of Australia owes them a living due to their life choices?

Parents with kids eight years old and over should be working (yeah Nicola Roxon that means you too). Newstart plus allowances allowed for the kids by world standards it is NOT living in poverty! Let alone developing countries, try being poor in the United States, living on food stamps in a motel room with $30 bucks left over after the rent, then get back to us for sympathy if you dare. Australia has a very generous welfare system.

Tetranitrate11:08 pm 11 Apr 13

bd84 said :

Perhaps she should help her electorate members get off their butt and get a job now that they have no valid excuse not to work, with their kids at school for 6+ hours a day. Then they could be like the rest of us and not rely on government handouts.

So when was the last time you hired a single parent to work within school hours?

What was so sick about that decision wasn’t adding job-search requirements anyway. The government could have easily added those to the parenting payments and patted themselves on the back, job well done.
They decided instead to shunt these people straight onto newstart, which pays significantly less, as part of a miserly effort to try and push the budget into the black for purely political (not economic) reasons.

Perhaps she should help her electorate members get off their butt and get a job now that they have no valid excuse not to work, with their kids at school for 6+ hours a day. Then they could be like the rest of us and not rely on government handouts.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.