More reversal of welfare reforms

What a lot of dangerous codswallop. Sepuloni says she is putting children first by removing National's 'subsequent child' policy.

I remember back in 2012, with the Nat's welfare reforms, there was a drive to get sole mothers in particular back into work because it was good for them and good for their children. Work gives adults a community, an independent income, self-esteem and discipline. And all of these are important for their children to experience firsthand.

So they increased work obligations in terms of how much and when (in relation to age of youngest child). 

But there was always the legitimate concern that some mothers would simply keep having children to avoid work. 

To that end they devised a policy whereby when a child was added, the existing work obligation kicked back in when that child turned one.

Now Sepuloni, no doubt 'encouraged' by the Greens, is doing away with it as part of the not-naming-fathers and indexing benefits to wages package.

There is a wealth of data analysis showing children added to benefits stay there the longest and have the worst outcomes. But she doesn't seem to have given the research a second thought.

Last year one in ten babies was added to an existing benefit at birth. For many of them it's a life sentence to neglect, abuse, transience, involvement with OT and eventually their own criminal offending and custodial sentences.