Stop ALL Proposed Social Services Cuts

For the purposes of this article, I call politicians ‘leaders’ as voted in by the Australian people, to represent the people. What type of hypocrite of a leader can accept an excessive salary and claim expenses from the public purse, for doing little more than strip away the right of the vulnerable? The minister is only there to represent the people not cause them disadvantage. By the very suggestion of cuts to essential payments mandatory under the Constitution is to push an unlawful agenda. These proposed cuts to welfare, will no doubt throw open the doors to Constitutional challenges to the benefits and meagre service entitlements, which the vulnerable are eligible to claim.


The current Social Services Minister Porter, pictured above, Porter, received expense claims from January 2014 to December 2015, this amount was equivalent to eighty-five years of Newstart. These excessive expenses were paid to Porter, on top of his wage as Social Services Minister.

The reason this occurs is the vast chasm of ignorance and ethical behaviour which has formed, – between the leaders in Australia and the people. The wages the leaders now receive and expenses they claim are so extortionate this has placed the leaders in a position whereby, they are out of touch, instead of in-touch and representative of the people. The leaders are confused are not ethically, nor morally driven to suggest to cut the welfare entitled to the vulnerable this would be a breach of our Australian Constitution. The vulnerable are eligible to receive welfare payments under the Australian constitution since amendments made in 1946.

The current leaders have distanced themselves to those who live to work and to pay off a debt, which has been marketed to them by the capitalist machine. Families fear homelessness so they incur debt as a pseudo safety, – over a rental eviction. This places families at a huge disadvantage and many families are just one small step; away from homelessness. It is unethical for the government not to have warned the people to have avoided house debts, which are disproportionate and unsustainable to the family’s income.

The current government are a flop and fail the people with adequate and affordable housing- these welfare cuts will not work in Australia, the welfare cuts proposal is based on a doomed New Zealand (NZ) model, when the cuts were introduced in NZ, 41 000 people, became home-less, this is civil injustice.


Leaders of the community are out of touch, with those who work hard to keep them in their jobs.

Our current politicians are paid surplus wages and could do much good with their wages alone, and yet many do not.

How can the leaders propose taking away needed welfare payments from the vulnerable?


How can leaders suggest education, in lieu of payments? Whilst currently leaders sit in the senate with no tertiary education themselves? To even suggest the vulnerable take on an education, – is to incur a debt. The debt of an education nowadays exceeds the debt in the 1980’s to purchase a double story quality home, and – back then in 1980’s Tertiary education was free.




The proposal to cut welfare safety nets to the vulnerable; contravenes the Australian Constitution


It is high time people who have children stepped down from their positions in society, and assisted their families and there was a shift within the workforce. The ice drug epidemic will continue to remain high, as long as leaders are using it to work to crowds, and gain sympathy with others. When good parenting is a parent; who steps up as a parent- as they are a parent for life. Parents must support their children through the hard times, parents should put their children first, before they try to lead the rest of society.

Many in society do not have family support, this is because parents are allowed to make up excuses as to why they do not see their ‘unruly’ children, as so-called Christian leaders make up excuses, to shun their ‘own’ children, this then becomes an acceptable societal norm. This divides and unnecessarily segregates society. Christian leaders are hypocrites who say they have ‘rebellious children’ because the Bible commands us, to love one another, Parents must love their children, they made them- so they’d best learn to love them. The ‘Tough Love’ ideology; does not work, it is some pathetic outdated 1960’s Christian oxymoron ideal. Many parents used this to shun their gay children, this is NOW UNLAWFUL. People I know some even aged 50 years old, see their parents throughout their lives.

There is another double standard in the community, whereby drug addicts are given priority over ordinary people. Why is it this nation continues to sympathise with drug user’s families, when parents have an obligation to raise their children in the best way possible? Battlers on Newstart payments are struggling to get an outfit together, for their job interviews, are about to have their payments cut. Those on substance addiction pensions, Drug addicts and drug dealers, swank out and around the ‘Pokie’ lounges- arriving at 10am set to begin gambling away welfare money, willy-nilly; adorned in their adidas track suits. Whilst hard working Australians are up at 5.30am, dressed and put in a whopping 22 hours in travel time alone, – i.e. from the Gold Coast to Roma street, just to arrive at work in the city law firms; – This is before they even begin billable hours. Then there are Roads full of congested cars rushing off to work praying they get to work on time, to get a coffee before the hectic day begins. Life is a rat-race when a sole parent with no family support has a sick child he/she has to look after them.

The people who are on the substance addiction pensions, will NOT be effected by the proposed changes- it will affect ordinary Australians, with debts for their cars and homes desperate to get a job, or about to lose one. Job security is not a surety, and this is why the constitutional amendments are integral to the Australian people.

Ordinary Australians do not deserve to have the threat of welfare cuts looming over their heads; whilst leaders waste vast sums of the public purse on expenses and catching RAAF jets and helicopters throughout the nation at whim.


In relation to ( and as seen on ) 20/9/16 The Australian Broadcasting Commission’s (ABC) ‘Pseudo welfare Lisa’, who it is estimated will cost the Australian public purse $500 000 in welfare in a lifetime, – if that pseudo person- had volunteered within her community since they were sixteen years old, on average of 20 hrs per week at $15 per hour for fifty years, at age 65- that would equate to $735 000. Ok I hear you, (I have a Liberal son) suppose she has not volunteered for fifty years? Firstly it is wrong for society to even have left out- ABC ‘Pseudo welfare Lisa’, and to have not included her into society in the first place, the Social Services Minister has failed her entirely. It is also unethical, for us to gloss over the cost an independent carer would cost –ABC’s ‘Pseudo welfare Lisa’, had rights afforded to her under 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution. Who gives the current Social Services Minister who has found no solutions to the welfare issues – has no notion of job creation- however this incompetency allowed this man, to not only be paid an adequate wage by the public as Social Services Minister but to claim a further $1.2 million in expenses, in 2014-2015 period on top of his adequate Minister’s wage.

We also note, it is a tad unethical to even consider it acceptable, for ABC’s ‘Pseudo welfare Lisa’, life to remain stagnant for half a century, I set her volunteer rate at $15 per hour rate for her hypothetical volunteering; – whilst inflation will continue to rise.

Why have things changed drastically in fifty years for politicians but not for ABC’s ‘pseudo welfare Lisa’? As when my friend’s father was the Mayor of Campbell Town, in NSW- HE WAS NOT PAID a red cent, he did it because he and his family were community minded folk. My Liberal son, asked when did? and who decided, politicians current excessive pay rates?

The Tweed Mayor gets an extremely low wage, to this day; and it is a time consuming and diplomatic role, in a border town. It is plain to see many in senate and State government work a lot harder than others- across many parties.

Many have given a life-time of philanthropy to the communities they live in and gladly so, it is unfair for them to be hassled by threatened cuts. Australians wake up; do not be fooled, we waste millions on pathetic leaders, who are ill equipped to run a household, let alone sit in the Federal senate and legislate laws.

Each arm of Government will continue to be inconsistent and therefore, fails the Australian public dismally, as many leaders have sat in the positions for far too long. Whereas, in United States the Constitution mandates– leaders may only serve for two terms, due to an amendment – “The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for election and overall time of service to the office of President of the United States. Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite 36 of the then-48 states on February 27, 1951”.[1]

This is why we have a completely disproportionate government expenditure as the longer leaders serve in a position, the less they feel they have to do, and the more of a right they feel they have to claim more. Even though they have completely done their job poorly for years, the public know no better, many do not even know they have rights to join a political party. In essence if a leader manages to scrape in after an election, there is nothing to stop them being there forever (Soppa 2016).

In Northern NSW, you cannot get adequate dental after four years on the waiting list, – the change for state to state discriminates against an individual on many levels- this is also unconstitutional under S117 Australian Constitution. This prevents people getting jobs.

Vast indifferences which cause the public unfair disadvantage currently exist between the states, registration licences, no day licences NSW, this makes many lose their jobs. It is also vastly unfair and discriminatory for medical waiting times in one state not being transferred to another state. These differences need to be bought in line, long before any cuts are in place further disadvantaging the vulnerable of NSW.


Rights of residents in States

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.”

With the proposed changes and cuts, the vulnerable will have their health card entitlements stripped. Which poses the question, do we really want sick people coughing and spluttering their germs all over us, as they cannot afford to seek medical attention; whilst the leaders we voted in do not represent the Australian people and instead the leaders seek to disadvantage and impose harm to the nation’s vulnerable?

Why is it we never hear about a sole parent Vietnamese refugee father who studied law, whose son survived cancer, struggled working and studying he is now qualified as a lawyer.



The detention of refugees is deplorable, and inhumane and an excessive and needless cost to this nation. I put it to the Australian people, the current leaders are so dysfunctional with the public purse expenditure, any who support the welfare cuts, should have their wages cut as well.

Why is it we have a nation who votes a woman who married a refugee yet wants to ban refugees to have four seats in the senate? If you are done for fraud you can’t serve as a lawyer so why are you allowed to run a political party?

The chaplaincy case – expands on the ‘Benefits to Students’ paragraphs, further highlight the many discrepancies in the cuts and proposals.  These proposed cuts to welfare, will no doubt throw open the doors to Constitutional challenges to the benefits and service entitlements to the vulnerable.

Further reading-
Please see this entire article by Professor Evans
Melbourne Law School
Opinions on High : High Court Blog’
Williams [No 2] Symposium: Simon Evans on Benefits to Students
Posted on 23 June 2014 By Professor Simon Evans
Williams [No 2] Case Page
 “Benefits to students
Benefits not limited to financial benefits and include services
It might have been open to the High Court in Williams [No 2] to adopt a narrow approach to ‘benefits to students’ — to distinguish between the reference in s 51(xxiiiA) to provision of medical and dental ‘services’ and the reference to provision of (direct financial) ‘benefits’ to students. However, the Court treated that possibility as foreclosed by its own earlier decisions on hospital and sickness benefits, Alexandra Private Geriatric Hospital Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1987] HCA 6 (Alexandra Private Geriatric Hospital Case); and the earlier British Medical Association v Commonwealth [1949] HCA 44 (BMA Case) on which it was seen to rest: ‘the concept intended by the use in [s 51(xxiiiA)] of the word “benefits” is not confined to a grant of money or some other commodity’ and that the concept ‘may encompass the provision of a service or services’.”
2) Thursday, February 26, 2015
3)  Federal Government unlocks $96 million war chest in bid to tackle welfare cost blowout
By political reporters Jane Norman and Anna Henderson
Limitations on State Constitutions – Uni Study Guides


[1] c/o Darren Soppa (retired QPS Detective Police Inspector) – he referenced the (Amendment XXII) during an interview on ‘Ethical Leadership’

Posted in LAW

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s