I could live on the dole, says Macklin

[garfield]

Ooops ;D





A MINISTER'S answer that she could live on the dole has been marked as "inaudible" in the official transcript from her office, despite the crystal-clear video.

From today parents will move from the parenting payment to Newstart in what federal Families Minister Jenny Macklin says is aimed at getting people back to work. About 84,000 single parents will be affected.

For parents in a relationship, the changes come into force when their youngest turns six.

>> Read more on the changes here

It will save the budget $728 million over four years, but welfare groups say it will lead to more people falling into poverty.

When asked today Ms Macklin said she would be able to live on the dole.

"I could, and of course we understand that what's important for people who are unemployed is that we do everything possible to help people get work," she said.

"That's the whole focus of this government - to do everything we can to help people to get into work and that's what we're doing with these single parents as well."

But when her office issued a transcript of the press conference, the question - and answer - were marked as "inaudible".

You can make up your own mind with the video above.

The Minister's office has been contacted for comment in regards to the transcript.

Ms Macklin said the changes to the single parenting payments were aimed at getting parents back into work.

"What we have found as a result of the changes made in 2006, we have seen more and more single parents going back to work and of course the more that people go back to work the better.

"Unfortunately we have far too many children growing up in families where nobody is working. We want to do everything we possibly can to support families to go out to work and hold down a job."

A person living on the dole receives $246 a week.

As a Cabinet Minister, Ms Macklin earns $6321 a week.

Ms Macklin was speaking at the Mercy Hospital for Women in Melbourne, where she visited new and future parents to celebrate the start of Dad and Partner Pay.

From today, eligible working dads and same-sex partners will receive two weeks of government-funded pay at the national minimum wage - currently about $606 per week before tax, for children born or adopted.

Will Enzinger, a self-employed equestrian coach, whose partner Emily Anker is expecting to give birth by caesarean section tomorrow, said the payment would allow him to take time off for the birth without having stress about money.

"Just to be there to support and do it together, it is a great opportunity," he said. "It will be a big help."

[sonex]

A very stupid thing for her to say.

[pim]

You let slip an unguarded comment, and all hell breaks loose. Labor does the same when it's a Liberal who runs off at the mouth. It's the media culture at work and politicians of all persuasions have to learn to live with it. Pauline Hanson was a gold mine of unguarded comments. Remember when she ran for the NSW State Parliament a few years ago? She rabbitted on to journo's about NSW police corruption and something about the NSW Police Commissioner came up:

Journo: Do you actually know who the Police Commissioner is?

Hanson: No I don't know who the Police Commissioner is ...

Gotcha!

Same here ... I agree with Sonex. It was a stupid thing for her to say.

[garfield]

I think technically she is correct really, if she found herself on the dole tomorrow she would still keep living, I mean she wouldn't die would she, she'd survive somehow, unless the shame was too much and she offed herself but otherwise I think we could all "live" on the dole if we had too if the alternative was to die on the dole ;D

[Deleted]

I don't think you'd be exactly "living" on the dole ... just existing maybe!

But I think the govt is correct in reducing the benefits to single parents. Look, the majority of these single mothers have put themselves in this position and have only themselves to blame. Kid after kid, usually to different fathers. The whole idea of putting them onto Newstart is to get them off their effing backsides and out into the workforce!! Like everyone else!!

Personally I am sick to death of single mothers whinging about how tough it is. They are nothing but lazy bludgers and most of them are in welfare housing anyway because of their single mother status so they are in a much better position than those who are struggling to pay huge rents.

I have no time for them. Life wasn't meant to be easy. I hope that the govt also makes muslim women get out and get a job too!! Or are they going to make exceptions based on a person's religion??

Just thinking too of the wanna be young refugee woman waiting in Indo and so happy that Juliar gave them all such wonderful Christmas presents like a visa and no detention.

Remember her words?? ... "now I will have free money and a free house and life will be very easy for me." I have news for you, you bludging scammer!! ... are you listening you useless govt??

[sonex]

But I think the govt is correct in reducing the benefits to single parents. Look, the majority of these single mothers have put themselves in this position and have only themselves to blame. Kid after kid, usually to different fathers. The whole idea of putting them onto Newstart is to get them off their effing backsides and out into the workforce!! Like everyone else!!

Here's a thought, why not go after the men who fathered these children. Hunt them down, grab a share of their wages to support their kids.

Put notices up in the male toilets at school, "you father a child, you support it for eighteen years".

[garfield]

Jan 2, 2013 10:38:36 GMT 10 sonex said:

Here's a thought, why not go after the men who fathered these children. Hunt them down, grab a share of their wages to support their kids.

They're all on the dole too sonex, anyone that has to pay child maintenance is wasting their time working.

[Deleted]

Sonex ... any female can just say "No!" Or take contraceptives! Males don't have kids, females do!! And when you're the one popping them out, it would be a good idea to take some responsibility!

Yes? Or is that too difficult a concept for some people to get their heads around?

[sonex]

Jan 2, 2013 10:41:53 GMT 10 @garfield said:

Jan 2, 2013 10:38:36 GMT 10 sonex said:

Here's a thought, why not go after the men who fathered these children. Hunt them down, grab a share of their wages to support their kids.

They're all on the dole too sonex, anyone that has to pay child maintenance is wasting their time working.

Well that makes it difficult then. Well, we can't have children begging on the streets, so we will just have to support them until they reach working age and hopefully they become taxpayers too.

[sonex]

Jan 2, 2013 10:45:35 GMT 10 Stellar said:

Sonex ... any female can just say "No!" Or take contraceptives! Males don't have kids, females do!! And when you're the one popping them out, it would be a good idea to take some responsibility!

Yes? Or is that too difficult a concept for some people to get their heads around?

Well it is obviously too difficult a concept for some males to understand, all they have to do is put a condom on at the right time.

[Deleted]

Well it is obviously too difficult a concept for some males to understand, all they have to do is put a condom on at the right time.

There you go again Sonex! It is the males' fault all the time. Can you understand that these females WANT to get pregnant?? To get the $6k baby bonus?? To skip the long housing lists so they can get priority housing?? To not have to work and support themselves but bludge on the taxpayers??

No?? Didn't think so.

[pim]

There you go again Stellar ... you're entitled to your own views of course but when you put them in this reductionist and b & w "it's a no-brainer" fashion the scene is set for another ideological slanging match.

I'm sure there are females who set out to get pregnant in some sort of predatory and opportunistic way. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. But that doesn't negate sonex's point (at least I assume it's her point!) that nobody forces a male to have sex with a female so if his sperm joins with her ovum and a zygote results it's because of a voluntary act on his part. Her part could well have been voluntary, or she could hae been raped. But assuming voluntary and consensual sex then they're each responsible for the outcome.

If you're a young bloke who wants to have recreational sex, then always have a condom or two handy (not always 100% effective, but hey ...!) and if you're a mature age male who has had his kids and now wants recreational sex only, then there's the vasectomy option ...

[Deleted]

Well, we can't have children begging on the streets, so we will just have to support them until they reach working age and hopefully they become taxpayers too.

Until they reach working age?? You're joking aren't you Sonex! The girls just go on the perpetuate the same lifestyles as their mothers ... single motherhood. The males become useless scumbag bludgers. Go out to Mt Druitt in particular and witness it. Sure there are exceptions but they're definitely in the minority.

Cradle to grave welfare, generation to generation.

[sonex]

Jan 2, 2013 11:14:42 GMT 10 Stellar said:

Well it is obviously too difficult a concept for some males to understand, all they have to do is put a condom on at the right time.

There you go again Sonex! It is the males' fault all the time. Can you understand that these females WANT to get pregnant?? To get the $6k baby bonus?? To skip the long housing lists so they can get priority housing?? To not have to work and support themselves but bludge on the taxpayers??

No?? Didn't think so.

"Wanting to get pregnant" doesn't make it so, want away, sperm is still needed. Capture the sperm in a condom, flush it away and voila, no pregnancy.

[sonex]

But that doesn't negate sonex's point (at least I assume it's her point!) that nobody forces a male to have sex with a female so if his sperm joins with her ovum and a zygote results it's because of a voluntary act on his part

Yes Pim, that was exactly my thinking.

[Deleted]

Gee Sonex ... you must come from a sheltered existence up in the boondocks or wherever! I don't want to seem patronising, but they don't want to capture the sperm in condoms and flush it away!!! Because "voila, no pregnancy" is not the outcome they're aiming for!

I can see you are not acquainted with the west and south west suburbs of Sydney and welfare housing estates where countless households of single mothers and children are the norm.

And in the odd case where they DON'T want to become pregnant, they should be on the pill. Or take the morning after pill. Or have a termination as a last resort.

Or choose their partners more carefully. (what a novel thought!)

[Deleted]

I'm sure there are females who set out to get pregnant in some sort of predatory and opportunistic way. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. But that doesn't negate sonex's point (at least I assume it's her point!) that nobody forces a male to have sex with a female so if his sperm joins with her ovum and a zygote results it's because of a voluntary act on his part. Her part could well have been voluntary, or she could hae been raped. But assuming voluntary and consensual sex then they're each responsible for the outcome.

All men are opportunistic. I've never met one yet that didn't try it on. But once again, it depends on who you choose to become your partner. I have always chosen carefully. Maybe it's because I value myself and I have standards. I do not and never have allowed any scumbags in my life.

And now I am off to work. (What a novel idea ... pity these single mothers didn't think of occupying their time in a such a positive and financially constructive way.)

[garfield]

Jan 2, 2013 12:10:22 GMT 10 Stellar said:

And now I am off to work.

And the first couple of hours will be spent working to pay for labors boat people and welfare dregs.

[sonex]

There you go again Sonex! It is the males' fault all the time

Well I suppose one could say that. The female has the eggs ready and willing to be fertilized for several days and nights. She is the passive receptor, (not sure if that is the right word) but the male has to be the dominant one by actually penetrating her and aiming his sperm right at those little eggs.

[matt]

I have no problem with this deadwood labor minister living on $35 a day, she said she could and therefore should.

It also proves the point that politicians do not require the pay rises which they grant themselves each and every year. Sure, they claim that the recommendations are made independently by their very own remuneration commission (why can't they use Fair Work Australia?), but this is complete bullshit!

[matt]

I believe both the mothers and fathers should take responsibility. I knew when I was in my teens that everytime I stuck my dick in a woman, there was a risk she would fall pregnant.

If you can cum, you can become a father... simple.

[pim]

Thank you for that devastating (and penetrating??) insight, Matt. I'm sure we all understand the issues much better now ...

[Lord Stockton]

Question does any one know how many homes were /have been constructed by Maklin's dept for the aboriginal back in 2009 to 2010? SHe had a budget of roughly $750mill to build 740 homes (just think about the cost per home any pensioners on this board). The last figure I heard was nil but $200mill had spent on committees to design & supervise them.

I have my doubts Miss Maklin could live on $246 per week in South AUstralia as the SA Housing Trust is reknown for taking upwards of 90% of your pension just for accomodation

[jody]

What a joke!!!!

Families Minister Jenny Macklin claims she could live on $35 a day... which is the current Newstart Allowance for the unemployed in Australia.

Well, let's see shall we.... Start with $245 per week.

Subtract:
$250 for house rental = -$5

Hmmm, not looking good so far...

$45 for electricity = -$50
$30 for petrol/gas = -$80
$40 for food = -$120

That's meat and veg only. Danged sure there's no room for luxuries in there like milk, cheese, yoghurt, the nicer tropical fruits, luxury vegetables such as avocado... certainly no fish, which the experts tell us we should eat once a week for good health.

Already well into the red. And we haven't talked about car repairs, registration and insurance, clothing, dental, medical, birthday and Christmas gifts, school fees, books, pet food, vet bills, other utilities, etc.

With all due respect to acting Greens leader Adam Bandt, who is offering to try to live on that amount for a week - well, ANYONE can do it for a week, especially if you only buy food with that payment. Try it for six months, no dipping into your $300,000 a year salary as a minister, or your investments, or borrowing. Just try it! I dare you...

Honestly, are our politicians REALLY that removed from real life???

[jody]

The above is from a friends facebook.