The Gillard Government

[sails]

DocK, I agree with you.

To force single mums out to work when their kids are still in primary school is unbelievable. What happens when the child/ren get sick? I help out a lot with my little 6 year old granddaughter and it is hard work! Pretty tough for mums to have to get the child/ren off to school in the morning with packed lunch, go to work herself and then what does she do at 3pm? Will her boss let her go home if she can't afford after school care?

If she can afford after school care, then she gets home about 5-6pm at night to try and cook dinner (that's if she has had time to fit in some shopping). Then it's homework, baths and kids to bed. Then she probably has to do dishes, put on a load or two of washing and hang that out. One weary mother drops into bed at night and sets the alarm to do it all again the next day.

And, then if the child gets sick and can't go to school and there is no-one else to care for it - what happens then? Does the mother leave the child illegally at home on their own or do they take time of work and risk being made destitute (and possibly homeless) on newstart?

If the age was reduced to 12 it would make more sense as kids in highschool are more able to get themselves to and from school and even do some useful jobs to help out. Also, they are legally permitted to be at home on their own.

I feel that this will force more people into homelessness and make life even tougher for kids who are already disadvantaged. And, meanwhile, boat arrivals are given housing which our own battlers find almost impossible to get.

 

[Daffyduck]

The dole needs to be low enough to drive recipients to look for a job but not so low that it impedes their capacity to do this. $35 per day is not enough. It wouldn't even pay the rent on most one bedroom flats in capital cities, let alone allow for children to have their own room.

If a person cannot meet the rent, let alone buy food, pay utilities, phone etc, get to job interviews, how is the extremely low payment promoting their capacity to find a job?
All it will do is drive the rate of homelessness higher, not to mention the misery to so many of living below the poverty line.

If we can house asylum seekers in air conditioned comfort, provide taxpayer funded housing for them, how the hell is it appropriate to treat job seekers so much less helpfully?

Just to clear this up as alot of people, media included, get this wrong. Anyone receiving Newstart allowance also receives rent assistance which is about another $10 or so per day. Everyone seems to overlook the rent assistance and even though the total amount is still a pittance compared to a normal wage, it still makes a big difference.

These new changes are disgusting imho. How Jenny Macklin can claim she could live on this level of income is insane and it just goes to show how out of touch some of these people are. A week on this sort of income wouldn't prove anything anyway, i'd like to see her try it for 3 months or so, i'm sure she'd change her tune if she really found out what it was like.

About time the pollies took a pay/perk cut and/or make the illegal immigrants pay their welfare back if they want to cut spending.

 

[Julia]

Just to clear this up as alot of people, media included, get this wrong. Anyone receiving Newstart allowance also receives rent assistance which is about another $10 or so per day. Everyone seems to overlook the rent assistance and even though the total amount is still a pittance compared to a normal wage, it still makes a big difference.

I was aware of the rent assistance, having worked in the welfare sector for many years. Just didn't think it worth mentioning as it's not enough to ameliorate the situation. At best it still only brings the total to around $300. I cannot imagine anyone not sharing accommodation being able to manage on that if they are also running a car, paying insurances, electricity, medical expenses etc.

However, there was a radio talkback late last night on this where the presenter invited people living on the dole to call. Many did. One was in despair about his situation, but all the others - although saying it was very hard - said that with very careful budgeting and accepting that they couldn't go to movies, out for meals etc., they did manage. One bloke said that, although he couldn't go to the pub "as often as he'd like" he still bought grog every 'payday'.

So the government does have a point, I guess. The taxpayer shouldn't be funding life to be so pleasant on the dole that the incentive to get a job is removed.

Sails, thousands of women with several children to care for do work full time. I'm pretty sure subsidised child care is available though don't know any details.

The point I can't avoid coming back to is that we provide housing for asylum seekers in our communities, and give them the allowance only marginally below what our own unemployed people receive. Cannot see that as right.
And some of our Australian charities should be helping our own people before they worry so much about the boat arrivals.

 

[sails]

...
Sails, thousands of women with several children to care for do work full time. I'm pretty sure subsidised child care is available though don't know any details.

The point I can't avoid coming back to is that we provide housing for asylum seekers in our communities, and give them the allowance only marginally below what our own unemployed people receive. Cannot see that as right.
And some of our Australian charities should be helping our own people before they worry so much about the boat arrivals.

Julia, yes thousands of women with young children do work, however I think you will find they either have a supportive partner OR they have other back up help with family or friends who are not working and are free to help.

And yes, there is childcare, however (again!) they will not take children who are sick or have an infectious disease. School sores has been doing to rounds where we live and that requires at least two days off school/childcare while antibiotics are given and some doctors say the wounds need to be healed before they will give the OK to return to school/childcare - and that can take a week or more. Then there are the high fevered flus where a child is simply too sick to go to school. What does a single mother with no outside help do? Does she leave a child under 12 illegally at home on their own? If she takes days off, good chance she will lose her job and be reduced to newstart which is not enough in itself to even pay rent.

And many of these single mums can't get into public housing which would relieve much of the financial pressure in keeping a roof over their heads and yet boat arrivals seem to be taking the housing so badly needed by some of our own. Fully agree with your comments.

I also think it would have been better if the baby bonus had been restricted to maybe 2-3 kids and on a reducing basis to help remove the carrot for single mums to keep having more kids with the current policy planned for about 8 years away so that single mums are fully aware of the financial responsibilities they will need to pick up. To have given them the carrot of a baby bonus and then to cut back their payments without much warning seems to be further disadvantaging these children even further. It seems they are trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. Better to shut the gate first!

I would think the likely outcome of this would be that there will be more homeless people and more kids being taken into foster care. That will likely cost the government far more than the few dollars they will save with this policy. I understand it is only about $170 million they will save per year.

It would appear the greens have opposed this so it looks like the coalition have supported labor on this policy which is disappointing. Possibly our pollies have never experienced life as a single mum with no or little outside help from family/friends.

It is young children who are likely to suffer from this policy and that is never acceptable, imo.

 

[Calliope]

All "single mums" became mums by choice, many just to get the ill-considered baby bonus. Thus by choice they are trying to raise kids they can't afford. They then expect the taxpayer to become the surrogate father.

Yes, I know, I know, it's the kids that suffer, so the taxpayer has no alternative to picking up the tab, even though these children will never get out of the rut created by thoughtless parents.

 

[DocK]

All "single mums" became mums by choice, many just to get the ill-considered baby bonus. Thus by choice they are trying to raise kids they can't afford. They then expect the taxpayer to become the surrogate father.

Yes, I know, I know, it's the kids that suffer, so the taxpayer has no alternative to picking up the tab, even though these children will never get out of the rut created by thoughtless parents.

So the many women whose husbands/partners have decided to abandon them made that choice did they? Did the 18 year-old who accidentally became pregnant and chose to keep her baby make that conscious decision? Did the single Dad whose wife decided it was all too hard and ran off leaving him with 3 kids to bring up on his own make that choice also? What about those who've decided to remove their kids from a violent/abusive home and go it alone rather than stay with a "breadwinner" who likes to use his kids as punching bags? It's very easy to throw out generalisations like your's above - life's not always just as Today Tonight or A Current Affair would have you believe. There are a lot of single parents - mums and dads - who never in a million years intended or dreamt they'd find themselves in that position.

To write off an entire demographic of kids with a sweeping statement that

these children will never get out of the rut created by thoughtless parents

is judgemental beyond words imo. It takes more than money to raise a child - I'd rather a single parent who loved and supported me than two parents who paid little attention. It must be a black-and-white world where you live.

 

[Calliope]

[DocK;745083

It takes more than money to raise a child - I'd rather a single parent who loved and supported me than two parents who paid little attention.

This issue is about giving "single mums" more money, and not about moral or ethical standards.That is another issue entirely.

It must be a black-and-white world where you live

Why?...because I don't believe the taxpayer should have to bail out people who have made stupid decisions?

To write off an entire demographic of kids with a sweeping statement that
these children will never get out of the rut created by thoughtless parent

Once you are in the cycle of poverty it's hard for the off-spring to break free.

 

[DocK]

It takes more than money to raise a child - I'd rather a single parent who loved and supported me than two parents who paid little attention.

This issue is about giving "single mums" more money, and not about moral or ethical standards.That is another issue entirely.

My comment was in response to your remark that these children will never get out of the rut created by thoughtless parents. I disagree with your assertion that that if you're born poor, or brought up poor, that you are somehow destined to stay in the rut your parent/s created.

It must be a black-and-white world where you live.

Why?...because I don't believe the taxpayer should have to bail out people who have made stupid decisions?

Did you even read my examples of those single parents who did not choose their way of life? Are you saying that every single parent became so deliberately and made a stupid decison?

To write off an entire demographic of kids with a sweeping statement that
these children will never get out of the rut created by thoughtless parent

Once you are in the cycle of poverty it's hard for the off-spring to break free.

See my comment above - there are a lot of self-made people who would disagree with you. It's hard, but it's certainly possible, especially if the single parent raising you is able to feed and house you at a basic standard at least.

 

[Calliope]

I am not the only one who thinks that poverty begets poverty and yet I am accused of being judgmental and living in a black and white world. The parents of these "half a million children " mentioned below may love them to bits, but they are dooming them to a life of disadvantage.

We must avoid at all costs policy that encourages intergenerational welfare dependency, for if there is one thing worse than a child living in reduced circumstances, it is an adult whose childhood experience has equipped him poorly for working life. In 2007-08, more than half a million children were in the invidious position of living in a household with no working adult, almost two-thirds of those in one-parent families

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...form-by-accident/story-e6frg71x-1226546776270

 

[Calliope]

​

Are you saying that every single parent became so deliberately and made a stupid decision

Of course not.

See my comment above - there are a lot of self-made people who would disagree with you. It's hard, but it's certainly possible, especially if the single parent raising you is able to feed and house you at a basic standard at least.[/

I don't doubt it. Anything is possible..

 

[DocK]

I am not the only one who thinks that poverty begets poverty and yet I am accused of being judgmental and living in a black and white world. The parents of these "half a million children " mentioned below may love them to bits, but they are dooming them to a life of disadvantage.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...form-by-accident/story-e6frg71x-1226546776270

From the same article:

There is, however, a strong case for reviewing the adequacy of the Newstart payment with reference to the cost of living.

You seem to be determined to argue points I have not made, and not address those that I have. I'm all for single parents re-entering the workforce where possible - but sometimes it simply is not, and the pittance they are now being expected to live on is too little imo.

You have failed to answer my question - Do you maintain that all single parents made stupid decisions and became so deliberately? Those are your comments that I find to be particularly judgemental and sweeping. You do rather seem to be dismissing all single parents as stupid people who deliberately set out to bludge on the welfare system and are now crying poor rather than getting off their bums and finding a job. Sounds judgemental to me, which is why I asked for clarification.

Never mind, I see our posts crossed. I'm glad you've changed your position re all single parents having chosen their circumstances. It is so easy to write off an entire section of our community due to preconceived ideas fostered by alarmist media.

 

[sails]

...Once you are in the cycle of poverty it's hard for the off-spring to break free.

Agree with that statement, but why put them into even worse poverty? Will these young ones take to stealing and other crime because mum is at work and there is no-one supervising?

I'm more for stopping or reducing the baby bonus after 2-3 kids and even then it should be a reduced amount for each subsequent child. In my day we had no such baby bonus. I don't know why we need it now. Surely this is the first step to making people more aware of the financial responsibilities of raising a child?

But this new policy seems to have shut the gate after the horse has bolted. Stopping (or severely reducing) the baby bonus would surely be a better way to help shut the gate in the first place.

 

[Calliope]

.

You have failed to answer my question - Do you maintain that all single parents made stupid decisions and became so deliberately? Those are your comments that I find to be particularly judgemental and sweeping..

Wrong again. Read my last post.

From sails;

Agree with that statement, but why put them into even worse poverty? Will these young ones take to stealing and other crime because mum is at work and there is no-one supervising?

If anyone knew the answer as to whether pouring more money into the welfare system, will fix the plight of unmarried mothers, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[DocK]

...snip....

Never mind, I see our posts crossed. I'm glad you've changed your position re all single parents having chosen their circumstances. It is so easy to write off an entire section of our community due to preconceived ideas fostered by alarmist media.

Wrong again. Read my last post.

Guess you didn't read the edited version - our posts crossed.

 

[Julia]

Agree with that statement, but why put them into even worse poverty? Will these young ones take to stealing and other crime because mum is at work and there is no-one supervising?

I suppose that's not an inevitable outcome. Poor doesn't necessarily mean amoral, often quite the contrary.
I understand your point, sails, just worry rather that we do have a tendency to expect the worst of people rather than the best and that's entirely counterproductive.

I'm more for stopping or reducing the baby bonus after 2-3 kids and even then it should be a reduced amount for each subsequent child. In my day we had no such baby bonus. I don't know why we need it now. Surely this is the first step to making people more aware of the financial responsibilities of raising a child?

But this new policy seems to have shut the gate after the horse has bolted. Stopping (or severely reducing) the baby bonus would surely be a better way to help shut the gate in the first place.

Agree entirely. The baby bonus was one of Costello's most poorly conceived thought bubbles.
His hypothesis was that more children would grow up to expand the tax base and therefore support the growing numbers in retirement. That would be fine if the people who would rear children to do that were the ones influenced by a few thousand dollars. They were not. The intelligent, thoughtful people with a strong work ethic would never have been induced to have a child they would not otherwise have because of a financial incentive.

But we did see the poorly educated, more difficult to employ young women seeing just the dollar signs.
We saw hundreds of them at the community centre where they came because they couldn't balance their budgets. Asking these pregnant young women what they would do with the baby bonus, it was inevitably stuff like "take all the kids to Dreamworld", buy new bikes for everyone etc etc. I can recall just one girl who said she would use it to buy essential baby needs and hopefully have some left over to open a bank account for the child.

Of course not all single mothers are hopeless and condemned for ever to poverty. But let's remember that it was only a couple of generations ago that there was no such payment for women alone. They had to work to survive or stay with an often bad marriage. I'm not suggesting there was anything positive about the latter alternative, but I do think there needs to be a limit to the demands on the taxpayer.

Now it seems to be the 'right' of every woman to have publicly funded IVF so she can have the child that she considers her god given right. Lesbians in particular are taking advantage of this. Then they receive the baby bonus and a taxpayer funded benefit.

We have many single mothers with six or more children who are pulling in via welfare considerably more than many working families who are paying the taxes to support them.

My concern is that the balance is becoming out of sync, and for that reason support the principle the government has in mind of getting people into work.
Far more useful in every way for a child to grow up seeing a parent or parents working productively than sitting around passively on welfare.

 

[Calliope]

From DocK

I'm glad you've changed your position re all single parents having chosen their circumstances. It is so easy to write off an entire section of our community due to preconceived ideas fostered by alarmist media.

I did not state a "position re all single parents having chosen their circumstances." Such an idea is nonsense. I do not change my mind to conform with some "preconceived ideas fostered" by you as to what you imagined I'd said.

 

[sails]

Julia, I agree that many people will take public funding if it is available. The carrot of the baby bonus will inevitably bring more children to those who can probably least afford to raise children financially unassisted. The carrot of easy entry into Australia together with housing and all needs provided is giving a massive carrot to asylum seekers. And I would imagine they are collecting baby bonuses while laughing all the way to the bank.

The carrots need to be removed (including our borders) - and I have no problem with encouraging single parents out to work but perhaps when the youngest turns 12 would be more appropriate as they can legally be left at home on their own.

I think this policy could cost the government more than they will save. I suspect that foster care will increase, destitute families desperately needing housing will add to the government financial burden and some mothers are very likely to go and get themselves pregnant once again which will reap them yet another baby bonus and another 8 years on the pension. I can't see where the savings are actually going to be found.

If a woman goes on long enough, she might be able to keep that up until she goes on the old age pension - or she will have enough older children to help her out while she is at work!

 

[DocK]

Julia, I agree that many people will take public funding if it is available. The carrot of the baby bonus will inevitably bring more children to those who can probably least afford to raise children financially unassisted. The carrot of easy entry into Australia together with housing and all needs provided is giving a massive carrot to asylum seekers. And I would imagine they are collecting baby bonuses while laughing all the way to the bank.

The carrots need to be removed (including our borders) - and I have no problem with encouraging single parents out to work but perhaps when the youngest turns 12 would be more appropriate as they can legally be left at home on their own.

I think this policy could cost the government more than they will save. I suspect that foster care will increase, destitute families desperately needing housing will add to the government financial burden and some mothers are very likely to go and get themselves pregnant once again which will reap them yet another baby bonus and another 8 years on the pension. I can't see where the savings are actually going to be found.
If a woman goes on long enough, she might be able to keep that up until she goes on the old age pension - or she will have enough older children to help her out while she is at work!

I hadn't considered the aspect that I've bolded, but you raise an excellent point - the type of woman who would have a baby purely to get the baby bonus, would no doubt see another pregnancy as a way to stay on a higher benefit - costing the taxpayer even more in the long run!

I agree that ideally single parents should return to work, but this is not always possible without causing undue hardship or undesirable outcomes. I guess it's no different to other cases of welfare - it's impossible to distinguish between those who really need it vs those that are exploiting the system. I don't necessarily think it's a case of how old the youngest child is, but of what support systems are in place or available, and the likely outcomes for the child/children concerned. Perhaps the Govt needs to address the issue of outside school hours care availability before parents of needy kids are placed in a position of needing to leave them for long periods of time. How much money is going to be saved by these measures vs the amounts wasted on some of the mad schemes over the past few years? Is this just a case of making cuts that will upset a few but not worry or in fact even please the majority?

 

[DocK]

All "single mums" became mums by choice, many just to get the ill-considered baby bonus. Thus by choice they are trying to raise kids they can't afford. They then expect the taxpayer to become the surrogate father.

Yes, I know, I know, it's the kids that suffer, so the taxpayer has no alternative to picking up the tab, even though these children will never get out of the rut created by thoughtless parents.

From DocK;I'm glad you've changed your position re all single parents having chosen their circumstances. It is so easy to write off an entire section of our community due to preconceived ideas fostered by alarmist media.

I did not state a "position re all single parents having chosen their circumstances." Such an idea is nonsense. I do not change my mind to conform with some "preconceived ideas fostered" by you as to what you imagined I'd said.

Best we leave it there I think - it's not really a discussion is it?

 

[sails]

I hadn't considered the aspect that I've bolded, but you raise an excellent point - the type of woman who would have a baby purely to get the baby bonus, would no doubt see another pregnancy as a way to stay on a higher benefit - costing the taxpayer even more in the long run!

I agree that ideally single parents should return to work, but this is not always possible without causing undue hardship or undesirable outcomes. I guess it's no different to other cases of welfare - it's impossible to distinguish between those who really need it vs those that are exploiting the system. I don't necessarily think it's a case of how old the youngest child is, but of what support systems are in place or available, and the likely outcomes for the child/children concerned. Perhaps the Govt needs to address the issue of outside school hours care availability before parents of needy kids are placed in a position of needing to leave them for long periods of time. How much money is going to be saved by these measures vs the amounts wasted on some of the mad schemes over the past few years? Is this just a case of making cuts that will upset a few but not worry or in fact even please the majority?

DocK, see the link below and it says this policy will save the government over $680 million over four years - that's an average of $170 million per year. I doubt that will cover the expenses we have mentioned and is mere pocket money to this extravagantly spending government.

While child care is helpful, unfortunately, they are no help if the child is sick with something contagious. That includes the gastro bugs, things like school sores and if they have a fever. Who cares for the kids when that happens if family is unavailable, don't want to babysit or are working themselves? An older child can stay at home on their own (not ideal, but neither is it illegal).

It is the kids that I feel are at risk of being further disadvantaged. If they had dropped the age from 16 to 12 that would be more reasonable, imo. But 8 is still very young and I understand it is illegal to leave them at home on their own. I think it might be illegal in Qld to let a child under 12 walk to school without an adult to accompany them.

So, I guess the single parent families will either have to muddle through with mum at work OR learn to cope with $2500 less in payments per year. I think they currently get $15,000 in base income per annum so that will be reduced to $12,500 under the new system. Those are difficult choices and which ever way they decide, it will make life tougher for the kids.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/good-and-bad-news-for-parents-20121230-2c1h4.html