La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day

Nathan says:

06:53am | 10/02/12

” I have real sympathy who can only get part-time work” spot on and these are the people who are always missed because no one really looks at those figures closely or at least not publicly so there are no votes in it so why would the politicians care

Zezebelle says:

07:15am | 10/02/12

How do you expect people to travel to regional Australia on the dole?

Mayday says:

08:01am | 10/02/12

You don’t know what you are talking about and you must not have read the article properly…..“194,000 vacancies and 575,000 Australians seeking work in November 2011”

I am 56 years of age and have been underemployed for three years so how do I afford to pay rent on my place here in Sydney and move west for a couple of months seasonal work?

I am expected to leave my small but very supportive group of family and friends to do back breaking work which would eventually leave me unemployed again once the picking job finished?

Old Fogey, you need to get out into the real world and think occasionally.

jade (the other one) says:

10:07am | 10/02/12

@Mayday - Abbatoirs in the town of Charleville have had to resort to sponsoring Vietnamese and Korean migrants to work there. It is more expensive than paying the $35 per hour they were paying Australians. The reason they have had to resort to that is because they cannot get Australians to work those jobs, which are permanent, full time work.

Most farms have permanent full-time work mending fences, working stock, or doing other labouring jobs. They don’t tend to advertise. You go out there, and wander around the farms, and ask for work.

It is not the responsibility of the taxpayer, or the government to subsidise a specific standard of living.

There are also restaurants everywhere in Brisbane with signs out advising positions for dishwashers and kitchenhands available.

Lauren Quinn says:

10:11am | 10/02/12

“Not all unemployed people are dole bludgers but there are still enough of them about to divert sympathy away from the unemployed. “

How many ‘dole bludgers’ are there? The dole bludger (ie, someone who deliberately gets on/stays on the dole) is a complete myth. It has been shown time and time again that LESS THAN 10% OF NEWSTART CLAIMS ARE FRAUDULANT. Where are the incentives to get on the dole? Who CHOOSES to live below the poverty line?

“There are plenty of jobs out there if you get off your butt and do the hard yards.”

Three to one, mate, did you not read the article? There are THREE unemployed people for every ONE vacant fulltime job. That doesn’t include how many UNDERemployed people there are for each job. Get your facts straight or pull your head in.

St. Michael says:

11:05am | 10/02/12

“How do you expect people to travel to regional Australia on the dole?”

Centrelink will probably have a relocation allowance hidden away somewhere that allows you to do so.  It’s only the bludgers, with sufficient experience in the system, who know of it and would be able to access it regularly.

Note also that if you’re eligible for Newstart Allowance, there are a range of other Centrelink benefits that potentially you qualify for too: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/newstart_benefits.htm  It’s not just the $16 per day.

Disco Stu says:

11:27am | 10/02/12

Not everyone is built like a pacific islander are they you old git? Could you do that work if it was the only work you could get? i bet not.

Economist says:

11:42am | 10/02/12

St Michael’s nailed it. The fact is the systems complex, few would be on just NSA. If they have kids they’d receive PPP, FTBA, FTBB and potentially CCB and rental assistance. 

I believe there are travel supplements for WfD, Working Credits, Study is subsidised including by state governments, in NSW TAFE is effectively free for those on income support. 

But also it is important to look at the flip side, that there are those that possibly only receive New Start and they would be doing it tough, they’d be relying on the Salvo and Vinnies who are a good estimate of the problem. But what amuses me are people who carry on about these payments but if you threaten middle class welfare they’re up in arms.

To give you an idea the portfolio budget statements indicate that we spend about $6B on New Start, $16-17B on Disability Support pension, but these pale into comparison with Family Assistance which is in the order of $25B.

In addition, as highlighted in the article there are more people wanting work then work available. Seriously the bludger mentality is not as prolific as made out. It’s there but not prolific. People have compliance requirements in order to receive benefits.

Finally, It shits me when people say get off your arse and get a job. Many of the people on income support have serious mental health disorders and disabilities that make it difficult for employers to employ them. Many employers are altruistic, but at times these barriers make it difficult to employ people where they are likely to reduce productivity and morale with other employees because of their illness. That’s why we need a safety net, and the safety net should be at a level where it’s likely to reduce crime through desperation.

My personal preference is for the Henry review recommendations to get up, of just three basic allowances with add ons to replace the 20+ basic payments the government manages now with all the add ons..

Carol says:

11:43am | 10/02/12

Too right Old Fogey, the unemployment benefit is a helping hand, not a
way of life.  There are jobs out there, maybe not the best jobs, but jobs.

All those suggesting that the unemployment benefit be increased have
failed to tell us where the extra money will come from!

It is all too easy for Australia to fall into the Greek trap and sadly very hard to get out of it.

AdamC says:

12:38pm | 10/02/12

Economist, in Lazarus Rising, John Howard explains his rationale for the family tax benefit arrangements put in place under his government.

In summary, his view is that people with children should pay a lesser rate of tax than those without because people with children are less able to afford to contribute their income to the state as they are supporting more people with that income. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and makes the whole ‘middle class welfare’ line seem rather vacuous.

However, one area where Howard overreached (and oddly so given his frequent characterisation as some sort of anti-welfare zealot) is by extending the tax breaks to the point that people can actually get a net payment from the government. He argued that there is really no distinction, that the payment of tax and receipt of benefits is essentially a continuum. I disagree with that.

Tom says:

12:43pm | 10/02/12

Old Fogey, great blog. You are very courageous though.

Firstly, the long term bludgers have developed a sense of entitlement and they will flame you.

Secondly, if all the bludgers (and don’t worry there are plenty) stopped bludging, then there would be more funds for genuine cases.

@Lauren Quin “is a complete myth.” ICB

Mayday says:

12:46pm | 10/02/12

Jade (the other one).

I live in Sydney.
I am a 56 year old female
I weigh 48 kilo and stand 154 centimeters tall.

I get casual work twenty hours a week but would love more so I can get out of the “working poor” lifestyle.
When work is not available I accept Newstart Allowance.
I will not work at night as it is too difficult to get home on public transport and there is a fairly high crime rate in the area I live so safety is an issue.
I won’t give up like my doctor wants by going on the disability pension. 
I am not disabled but I am not fully abled either.

I am one of thousands in the same boat, almost sunk but not just yet

People with attitudes like yours need to pull your head in.

Disco Stu…...spot on!

jade (the other one) says:

01:02pm | 10/02/12

@Mayday - all I ever hear from people who are long-term unemployed is excuses.

I’ve got friends who do bar work. They work late at night, are slight young females like me, and live in unsafe areas. They don’t see that as a reason not to take work, because they would rather work, than expect taxpayers to foot the bill til they find something more favourable. They, unlike people like you, have a sense of their community duty.

I know girls who are your size who work in abbatoirs or washing dishes in restaurants. Again, they, unlike people like you, understand that taxpayers are not there to fund their existence until they find a job that suits them. They understand that they are meant to take the job that they can get. And look for something better suited to them in the meantime.

waving not drowning says:

01:04pm | 10/02/12

Centrelink don’t let people move to an area where there is even less chance of them being able to get work.  Even if people could move there can they afford accomodation there? 

the first prerequisite of the non unemployed is to understand that a little compassion wouldn’t hurt or kill them.

Economist says:

01:52pm | 10/02/12

AdamC, Howards’ ideal is fine, but why introduce new payments? Why not look at effective marginal tax rates and try and flatten them out. The middle class welfare itself can create a disincentive to work, where a pay rise may mean you’ll lose $4000 in FTB for each child you have. Hence why I argue for implementation of Henry.

But can you also see that people are being misers at the bottom end? Centrelink do enforce compliance and while some may get around it, you just don’t receive a welfare payment and then sit on your backside. While there might be some bludgers a study done I believe estimated bludgers as around 20%, can’t find the link.

In addition, Centrelink regularly review a persons entitlements in detail, they share information with the tax office, they send paperwork to employers to complete on pay records (additional red tape for employers). If you fail to comply, they can take away your payment and raise debts against you.

I’m curious do you agree with my assessment that not everyone should work because they’re simply not employable? That they’d be detrimental to a business?

PS the suggestion below of paying into a fund linked to Super is a good one, but I’d prefer more efficiencies with regards to the tax transfer system to be implemented.

Old Chook says:

02:31pm | 10/02/12

I’m a 60+ female lost my work of 40+years . I’ve been working all my life paying taxes and now   I’M CONSIDERD A DOLE BLUDGER.
I started working when i was 15 years old and only lost out in 2010.
Maybe i should go north and pick fruit aswell. I think not!!!!.

AdamC says:

02:49pm | 10/02/12

Economist, I have no issue with addressing EMTRs, but I understand that is much easier said than done. And I don’t necessarily support miserliness when it comes to unemployment benefits, but I do think access to benefits should be time-limited. It is not a question of how many bludgers there are out there (I don’t really use that term, myself) but whether the system creates the right incentives.

St. Michael says:

06:06pm | 10/02/12

Also:

“How many ‘dole bludgers’ are there? The dole bludger (ie, someone who deliberately gets on/stays on the dole) is a complete myth. It has been shown time and time again that LESS THAN 10% OF NEWSTART CLAIMS ARE FRAUDULANT.”

Peter Sawyer, author of the 1980s book “Dolebludging: A Taxpayers’ Guide”, would like to talk to you.

He had just a little bit of knowledge about the subject in that he was a DSS claims officer who basically gathered material on just about every rort conducted against the welfare system, tried to push it upline again and again, was ignored, so left the organisation and wrote the book to try and bring attention to what was happening in the system.

To be fair, Sawyer himself did say that unemployment benefit—Newstart as it then was—was the hardest benefit to rort even back before the advent of tax file numbers and cross-checking between government departments.

On the other hand, he also pointed out that the vast majority of welfare fraud either takes place with a bit of UB “on the side”—collusion with employers, for example, or dishonestly claiming other payments to “top up” unemployment benefit.  For example: to date as far as I’m aware there has never been a prosecution of an employer for assisting an employee to rip off UB/Newstart, and that’s despite several strong prosecuting cases (one of which Sawyer himself details in the book) being raised.

He also pointed out rorts across the board in areas such as Sickness Benefit, Disability Pension, Remote Area Allowance, and Single Parent Benefit.  He did not claim to know the age of the youngest Single Parent Benefit recipient in Australia, but had processed claims for 12 year olds.  The bludger nirvana, as he put it, is Sickness Benefit: claim you’re an alcoholic, keep it up for roughly one year by doctor shopping for referrals to a few AA programs, and at least back when he was doing it you will be transferred to Disability Pension and not really bothered again.  Newstart’s too dangerous to stay on fraudulently for long, but disability pension ... well,to the dedicated bludger who knows how to tell lies and how legislative criteria work, it’s easy.

I might also raise this: welfare advocacy groups claim in August 2011 there were 547,000 people on Newstart Allowance.  Source: http://securejobs.org.au/submissions/24_jan_2012/National Welfare Rights Network.pdf

If just ten percent of those claims are fraudulent as you suggest that would amount to 54,700 fraudulent claims just on Newstart.  At a Newstart Allowance rate of $115 per week, that would be about $6,290,500 in defrauded funds paid out every week in Australia.  Assuming 52 weeks, that would make it roughly 3.271 billion dollars per year in fraudulently claimed funds. And I would posit the cost of recovering those funds—which mostly won’t be recovered—is probably going to be a substantial chunk of that lost amount anyway.

Less than ten percent adds up to a lot.

Economist says:

10:42am | 11/02/12

St Michael, I assume your comment was to me and it’s a shame the first part was lost in the ether.

Firstly being a bludger is not fraud, fraud has a very specific meaning in that it’s deliberately providing misinformation to get something your not entitled to. A bludger is someone entitled to a payment, but sticks on it by manipulating the rules for access. 

I believe Fraud rates vary from payment to payment as you hihglight, but that Centrelink don;t really report on these outright. They measure payment accuracy as a percentage of total outlays. Payment accuracy captures fraud and any other errors either by Centrelink or welfare recipients, I believe our payment accuracy figures are pretty good and I’ll try and chase down a link to them later, but these figures may be less than the $3B you’ve estimated, but a good estimate based on the info presented. 

While Sawyers work is really interesting, technology has allowed Centrelink to improve data matching with Tax returns etc. So in Sawyers day fraud may have been higher than it is now.

Thanks for providing that rigorous analysis.

Shiralee says:

05:10pm | 11/02/12

When was the last time you tried to get centrelink to help you Do a Course.Centrelinkdoes not help with that side of things,, Its the JSA. Every one I have done I’ve found myself. Why Because my last JSA flatly refused to advise me of relevant course that were going. Why? Because I shouldn’t expect them to do anything for me. My new Disability JSA doesn’t get the funding to help with that sort of thing. So please make sure you know all the facts before abusing people and making them feel worse than the already do.

St. Michael says:

11:52pm | 12/02/12

@ Eco: I wasn’t really directing the comment at you per se, mate—I just noted the comment I quoted that dole bludgers are supposedly a myth and went looking for stats on exactly how many fraud cases against Centrelink there are.

It’s not easy to find, thus the extrapolation in the figures, which are probably—surely—in error.  Surely we can’t be losing 3.2 billion per year just on one form of benefit alone.

I would anticipate a lot of changes consequent on Sawyer’s book, but some of the core values and principles which lead to the mess I doubt would have changed all that much.  Most importantly, that Centrelink probably still has to work by the public service model that legislative or regulatory criteria which still apply to a given form of allowance, and if you fit those criteria a claims officer really has no discretion but to admit the application, no matter his personal suspicions about your $1000 suit you wear to the interview.  At least, the officer has no discretion which can’t be overturned on a quick appeal to the SSAT, assuming it still exists in another form.  I mean, even up I think until Keating’s time the “student” loophole existed—that DSS would refuse any UB claim made by a student on policy, but on every single case where the student appealed, it had to roll over and pay it since a student fitted the criteria for UB perfectly.

Like I said, Newstart’s probably the most heavily-policed benefit and hardest to rip off of the lot—mostly because it always was so.

Single Parent Benefit is of interest to me, though, because of one maddening Catch-22s that Sawyer identified in his book: back at the time he wrote it, DSS/Centrelink, being a government body, could not lawfully acknowledge that a kid under the age of 16 was capable of being in a de facto relationship, since that would amount to tacit acknowledgment of a crime—sex being illegal for a girl under 16.  But that being so, Centrelink therefore literally has no choice but to provide Single Parent Benefit when a 15 year old says she is “supporting” a child on her own, even if she’s demonstrably living with a 24 year old—she fits the criteria automatically.  I don’t know if that particular insanity still exists in Centrelink, but having dealt with Legal Aid, which similarly winnows out the genuinely needy cases in favour of people who know how to tell the right lies, I would venture it probably does.

(Reading between the lines I suspect you might have, shall we say, some relevant knowledge on this area.  Without asking you to break the Social Security Act, am I on the right track here?)

Economist says:

11:49am | 13/02/12

St Michael, Thanks and from my POV this statement of your’s actually nails it “Most importantly, that Centrelink probably still has to work by the public service model that legislative or regulatory criteria which still apply to a given form of allowance, and if you fit those criteria a claims officer really has no discretion but to admit the application, no matter his personal suspicions about your $1000 suit you wear to the interview. “

This gets the the crux of the problem, and while we have the general public complaining about disaster payments payments to people only experiencing blackouts, pensions to people overseas etc, they don’t realise the problems with the legislation.

You also broadly raised an issue in your comment, 07:06pm | 10/02/12, about employers. I’d say there still would be employers paying in cash, which is not disclosed to Centrelink. I also think there are people not reporting properly to Centrelink their income and why would you? Many families would take the chance of not getting caught for the additional income particularly if they’re living from fortnight to fortnight. 

But lets not forget if your caught Centrelink will ask and in some instances take the money back.

Regarding personal knowledge, I used to work for government as an economic modeller in a variety of areas, I’ve also done my share of strategic auditing of programs and policies. Sorry no more detail than that. 

PS Thanks for the great exchange of ideas and info. It’s good to see in-depth analysis of policies and ideas.

Travis says:

12:59pm | 17/02/12

Old fogey, you really have no understanding of the current labour market do you. You think $35 per day is overly generous do you and they should all flip burgers or show some initiative as you would have done in your day. Yeah everyone should just get off their butt and move to a fruitpicking region. It’s that simple. Hmmm. Ridiculous.

Daniel says:

11:04pm | 23/04/12

It’s not that easy. I have been unemployed for nearly 12 months in a regional area and without being to afford to run a car I have not been able to get a job (I previously worked in freight logistics for ten years). Can’t afford to retrain myself and centrelink wont help until I have been out of work for 12 months. So get off your high horse

David Morgans says:

07:14am | 10/02/12

Agreed, acotrel.  Good leadership from our government would be a great start.

thatmosis says:

07:17am | 10/02/12

Were you born an idiot or did you go to the Labor idiot school. The major problem with todays businesses is not that the employers are doing a bad job its that the Fair Work Laws are crippling them. Just look at the mess GMH is in because of the “agreement” with the Unions, the CFMEU calling strikes in five major coal mines because the companies wont bow to their demands and the inability to sack, rearrange or modify their workplaces to put in best practice. Australia cant compete because our wages are too high, increased productivity is not part of any Union agreement and the perks like maternity leave, public hoilidays, leave loading, sickies are too many for any business to comply with and put out a product at a competitive price. Add to this the fact that its almost impossible to sack a worker, bring in contractors without Union permission and this country is going to shit in a handbasket and most if not all of it can be laid at the feet of the Unions and this Government who protects them. 11% of the workforce making 100% of the decisions does not a good workforce make. Sack all Unionists and reemploy them as contractors on a paid for work basis and maybe we would have some hope of keeping those industries that havent gone overseas, fail to do so and its the end of Australia having a manufacturing Industry at all.

jf says:

07:23am | 10/02/12

“About time qualifications in business management were required of entrepreneurs, before they start?”

Yeah brilliant. Let’s put a few more rules and restrictions in place, a few more barriers to initiative and development.

I can just see acotrel’s secret police shutting down lemonade stands and arresting young blokes mowing the next door neighbour’s lawn to earn a dollar.

Let’s stop the next Richard Bransons, the next Richard Pratts, the next Bill Gates from starting new businesses.

Zeitgeist says:

07:56am | 10/02/12

What does workchoices have to do with anything? Stop perpetuating the ridiculous political situation where we can’t discuss any issues without resorting to populous soundbite slogans. You are part of the problem.

To address your point (which has nothing to do with the article), I think you will find the high Australian dollar has a lot to answer for in the current Australian economic situation. To understand why, you must realise that the value of the AUD is found in comparing it to the value of the other global currencies.

It is all very noble to maintain a free floating currency, but unfortunately when you are the only one playing by the rules it has disasterous effects. The major global currencies are USD, EUR, GBP, JPY, CHF, AUD.

JPY and CHF governments openly manipulate (weaken) their currency. GBP and USD governments manipulate (weaken) their currency through ‘Quantatitive Easing’ measures. EUR do not need to manipulate their currency as it is a basket case. Which leaves our own AUD, appreciating to new highs, with the serious knock-on effects to our economy being completely ignored by the powers that be.

That it isn’t even on the political agenda says a lot about the current batch of politicians on all sides.

Ella says:

09:00am | 10/02/12

@ thatmosis
We are never going to be able compete with other countries on wages, nor should we even try. I certainly don’t want to live in a country where people can’t make a living wage from a decent weeks work.

We need to compete on other things. We need to provide better quality products that people will pay more for, we need to value add, to sell our intellectual products not our labour. A good example is the tannery where my Dad works. no way that they can compete price wise with other countries which have no OHS or environmental controls and pay their workers a pittance. In an economy where most Australian tanneries are shutting down they are still going because they focus on producing a quality product, they invest in R and D and come up with things that are innovative and that no one else is doing.

There is a middle ground between no jobs and exploited workers and we need to find it

thatmosis says:

10:53am | 10/02/12

Ella, when I had my business I started with Union employees but soon learnt that to protect myself and my business they had to go. All they wanted was wage rises without any productivity increases. I sacked the lot and took those that wanted back on as contractors. Now my business flourished and the workers,( note “workers"not unionists) took home almost twice as much as the award was. I made money, they made money and the absenteeism dropped to almost zero. Now with Fair Work Australia I wouldnt be allowed to sack them or bring in contractors to actually do thework because the unions protected by this stupid law wont allow it. If your willing to work for more as a contractor why has the Union got so much power to stop that. As for working for less maybe thats a great idea as prices have been artificially inflated because of wages and Government policies and will only get worse once the Carbon Tax comes in.

AdamC says:

09:01am | 10/02/12

Yeah, I thought this was a pretty ‘glass half empty’ sort of article.

TChong says:

06:52am | 10/02/12

No, take it from the military, so we no longer have the ( military ) resources availble for the next US act of aggression.
Keep the ADF as a DF, and not an extension of US adventurism, and save many hundreds of millions / billions of dollars ( and our ADF lives).

M says:

08:45am | 10/02/12

Scrap the baby bonus.

I hate pies says:

08:46am | 10/02/12

We could use the billions of dollars we’re about to funnel overseas to pay for the air we breathe

John the Zombie says:

08:55am | 10/02/12

Tchong get a life. Defence has made the toughest cuts and has done this better then other organisations.

Let me ask you, do you think the ADF should of gone to East Timof because a DF could not do this. Normal leftist responce cut the military budget without having a clue whats going on.

Here is another fact. In our region we are the only country to of cut military spending while others have massively increased it.

Also TChong these ppl can find jobs but choose not to. I worked as the morning manager while I studied at Uni at HJ and we struggled to get workers for years as the work was deemed beneath these people.

Erick says:

09:05am | 10/02/12

@TChong - Sorry, but that’s insane.

The US is losing influence and cutting back its own military, therefore we should spend much more on our defence forces.

We could, however, save several billions by defunding the ABC and a bunch of useless university departments.

Eskimo says:

09:39am | 10/02/12

The ADF is the greatest training organisation in this country. It can take a person with aptitude and turn them into storeman, a sparkie or a fighter pilot. Scaling back the ADF would be a drain on the skill level of this country.

TChong says:

11:26am | 10/02/12

guys + ( gals ?)
I ‘m not for abolishing the military, but keep it as a defence force, not as well resourced cannon fodder for US adventurism.
How long till we get talked into Iran?
JTZ - intervening in East Timor ( once the State Dept and Pentagon allowed us to,) and removing unecessary firearms from the public , were the only things Howard did, that I supported.
As a uni educated chap, are you stating that the situation you found - ie couldnt get enough workers , can be easily extrapolated for all unemployed?
Thats a curios conclusion, for some one so well educated.
Eskimo- keep , and expand the Sappers, and keep them in Oz, or our client states eg East Timor.

Ricky-B says:

01:54pm | 10/02/12

Ahhh, our resident America hater, T Chong, has slithered out & hissed his latest anti US rant. Keep it up Chongy, its great entertainment  

Angry_Of_Mayfair says:

03:14pm | 13/02/12

@Erick So we finish the destruction of Aunty and in so doing lose the only free-to-air intelligence that we have? Gee, THAT makes sense! Why don’t we scrap the Breeder Bonus, scrap all payments to those who CHOOSE to litter the country with more than one larva (don’t start dribbling on about declining population - I’m talking LONG-TERM population plan here), cull the ridiculous waste from politicians’ retirement benefits and make bureaucracy accountable for waste from the public purse? As for returning Work Choices, Alcotrel…PFFFT….stop slagging those of us who aren’t as affluent as yourself. The demise of that draconian slave-contract was the greatest thing to happen to Australia since the booting of that arse-licker Johnny Bonsai Bush.

mike says:

12:43pm | 16/02/12

angry of mayfair says,So we finish the destruction of Aunty and in so doing lose the only free-to-air intelligence that we have?,what a joke aunty is the most biased bent source of twisted half facts in the nation and they would never report on labour rorts so you must be a dill believing anything they broadcast

Nathan says:

06:56am | 10/02/12

Seems that is a common story, driving taxis that is. A couple of relatives of mine have done the same whilst searching for a job they wanted. Atleast you know worst case scenario there is always a back up option.

TChong says:

07:05am | 10/02/12

Good with the generalistions SL
They “all ““smoke ? , they “all ” head to the pub ?
They are all “deadbeats”  ?
What would you think of claims that “all” taxi drivers are “all ” low life scum bags, cant get a job in any other industry, all would be rapists. ?
backed up with nothing more than unrepresentative stories, ( like the recent episode in Perth) ,and unverifiable anecdotes, .
Just like what you’ve just posted.
You would be outraged, wouldnt you?
Think before writing offensive , ignrant crap.

S.L says:

08:59am | 10/02/12

Chongy yes I’m generalizing but I’m pretty accurate on this issue!
Ignorance? That is your opinion. Crap? Not a chance!

Rose says:

09:20am | 10/02/12

Sorry S.L., you are way off with your generalizations! These are the myths perpetrated by people such as yourselves to demonize the unemployed in order to defend the way they’re treated,
If the long term unemployed were given appropriate supports most could be helped to find employment, our system punishes them and ensures they remain unemployed and marginalized for longer.

jade (the other one) says:

10:12am | 10/02/12

@Rose - I grew up in a suburb with some of the highest rates of welfare in Australia. S.L. is dead on in this instance.

Measures need to be more, not less punitive. These people laugh at people who work, and see themselves as superior for being able to screw the system over. Most of them were second or third generation welfare recipients, and had no respect for work. And no interest in it either.

Rose says:

10:30am | 10/02/12

Just because you saw something doesn’t mean you understand it Jade. very easy to look superficially at something and be all knowing. Regardless of what you saw and heard, behind it are some very real struggles and disadvantage. The research doesn’t support your position and comes up with very real solutions it’s just that they are generally ignored. Easier to blame the unemployed than look at the systemic problems they face every day.

Bill says:

11:14am | 10/02/12

@ Rose - and what are the problems? Whether to watch Oprah or the channel 7 midday movie? Whether to wear the black or the grey tracksuit?

Typical bleeding heart ignoramus. People on the dole choose to be there because they are too lazy to work. We have the lowest unemployment rate in generations. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to be on the dole.

I’ve been working for almost 35 years and, although I have been unemployed for (very) short periods, I’ve never been on the dole. When I couldn’t get work in my chosen field, I worked as a courier or as a taxi driver to get me through.

What excuse do the dole bludgers of today have?

jade (the other one) says:

01:07pm | 10/02/12

@Rose - you ever been friends with people who are third generation welfare recipients? Not some nice volunteer with ideals and pretty little fantasies. But just mates who have a beer together?

What they tell researchers, their case workers and other support staff, and what they tell their actual mates are worlds apart. Until researchers stop asking them questions as researchers, and start asking them as equals, they will never get an appropriate response.

Of course someone who is third generation welfare is going to spout off about how difficult it is for them to find a job, and all the “challenges” they face, how “degrading” it is to go to charities for help. These self same people sit at the pub and laugh with me about how stupid the charities are for giving them a weekly box of groceries for $20, and how doing that means they get to go to the pub and drink with me. Also, how stupid I am for not getting into the act.

Wynston Cruso says:

01:10pm | 10/02/12

Granted you aren’t a complete retard, it’s pretty easy to get a job. If you want money you’ll work for it. I’ve been between jobs before a few times, never so much as thought about going on the dole. I needed money while I was applying for jobs that would make use of my degree, so spent all of 15 minutes throwing some applications together for shit kicker jobs through employment agencies and had work within a few days every time. It’s really not that hard, certainly not rocket surgery. People complaining that they can’t afford to go out and have fun while on the dole is fucking hilarious.

JT says:

07:31am | 10/02/12

Agree actually. In fact I believe it should start off high and slowly decrease over a period of 2 years (or less) by the end of which it is cut off for a minimum of 6 months.

And to repeat what Tim says further down: So its tough to live on the dole hey? That’s the whole point.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:32am | 10/02/12

Maybe do it in stages, start at $400pw for the first 3 months and then goes down $25pw every month after that and cuts off after a year or something similar.

Tim says:

08:33am | 10/02/12

Super D,
definitely agree and I’ve said it on previous threads on this issue.
The government should also force workers to pay a % of their pay into a Super style unemployment account that they then draw on if they become unemployed. After you’ve exhausted your unemployment account, you can go on the dole.
If you never become unemployed your account gets rolled into your Super when you retire

AdamC says:

08:36am | 10/02/12

Super D and JT, these are my thoughts also.

We should have a higher rate of Newstart, but limit the time period that it can be received. Or, as you suggest JT, have a reducing payment over time.

It is so difficult to live on the dole for any extended period of time is because the dole was never intended to be a long-term income support. Changes in society have meant was intended as a short-term palliative for the financial effects of involuntary, frictional unemployment has now become a facilitator of intergenerational poverty and idleness.

This sounds a bit heartless in our age of welfare ‘right’s, but the state should not be expected to financially support people indefinitely.

James1 says:

08:50am | 10/02/12

I like these ideas.  Well said gentlemen.

Martin says:

12:40pm | 10/02/12

@Tim

That’s actually a bloody good idea ! A kind of “unemployment insurance” with an end-benefit if you’re never unemployed.

The problem with social welfare is that it breeds softness, complacency and a whiney “it’s my right” attitude. My old father-in-law experienced much seasonal unemployment living in the country in the 40’s and 50’s and in those days there was no safety-net. “Nothing like hunger and desperation to stiffen the resolve and strengthen the backbone” he’d say. He worked many a shitty,  lowly paid job to get by until something else came along and it was tough slog, but it taught him versatility, resilience and appreciation of fair pay for an honest day’s work.

jay-ded says:

08:04am | 10/02/12

Income protection only covers you if your are sick / injured and cannot work and even then won’t kick in until you’ve been off sick for a month.

KH says:

09:07am | 10/02/12

If you have a super account (and most people will) - check your funds insurance arrangement - you may already have income protection cover - and yes, it is medically assessed - i.e. not for general unemployment.  Most industry funds have some kind of default cover, and it comes out of your super account so you could increase the amount of cover to what you would need…........... its surprising how many people don’t know this.

Jane2 says:

07:29am | 10/02/12

Mark, the trouble is she is libing under your roof. If you kicked her out she would qualify for more.

Mind you $18.50pw is enough to get her to any job interviews she may have.

I think the idea is parent pester power will not see the 18 yo who is living at home on unemployment for very long. 18yo have no excuse for being unemployed as they are prized in retail and hospitality.

jay-ded says:

08:08am | 10/02/12

How the hell did you manage that MarkF?  My son turns 20 this year and Centrelink won’t pay him a cent because he’s living at home and the combined income of myself and my husband exceed $40G/year, so he receives nothing.  He’s not even allowed discount public transport, so I have to pay full fare for him to go to a job interview.

Em says:

09:28am | 10/02/12

Mark, I call BS on that.

15 years ago I was living under my mother’s roof but unemployed and I was dropped like a hot potato by Centrelink as soon as my mother’s income bounced over 40K.

Before that I was allowed to have whapping $47 a fortnight as youth allowance.

If you’re bringing in a double income (regardless of where you sit on the payscale) then SOMEONE is fibbing.

Oh, and Jane2 - Out of that money (when I was eligible for it) I had to pay transport and uni costs. A fornightly transport pass cost about $40 at that point, so you need to get back into reality. $20 doesn’t even buy a weekly ticket now and this was over a decade ago. Also, if Mark and his family live rual, there might not be the opportunity for retail and hospitality jobs unless she moves out and heads to the cities…

MarkF says:

10:01am | 10/02/12

Hi Em.  Actually I’m not.  I work full time and the old girl gets about 15 hours a week cleaning various places, neither of us is on a white collar pay packet. 

You’ve been through the Centrelink mill so you know that if you ask three different drones there the same question, you will get three different answers.

The old girl just explained that it comes down to our estimates (we have two other younger kids) for Centrelink.  Apart from being nearly impossible to guess its a continually adjusted process.  That said she said that it was due to get cut again.  All I know is when Evette finished her bridging course at Uni what she was getting was dropped down to said $18.50 a week.

Needing to BS over something as small as this isn’t worth the typing.

Have a nice day.

Meghan B. says:

10:33am | 10/02/12

Jane2, on what planet does $18.50pw cover getting her to job interviews?  I don’t know where MarkF and his daughter live but in Melbourne, $18.50 wouldn’t cover two daily full fare transport tickets in Metropolitan Melbourne.  It wouldn’t cover one return full fare V-line ticket from the Gippsland region to the CBD.  Therefore MarkF’s daughter would be stuck at home for 5-6 days per week.  This goes without entering into the timetables and the poor punctuality standards that make it difficult to get anywhere at a designated time on rural transport, and quite literally impossible to travel at night.  I travelled from Melbourne to Gippsland for work/study for about a year and the public transport costs made my earnings practically negligible.  Living rurally and without public transport concessions, MarkF’s daughter would hardly be able to get anywhere.

gm says:

12:49pm | 10/02/12

Well MarkF why would you expect other taxpayers to pay for your daughter to find a job. If she is your dependant she is your responsibility if you dont like it get her to move out.  The attitude that people deserve payment from the government shits me to tears. The allowance is to supposed to be a security net not a lifestyle.
Try comparing the dole payment to someone on a minimum wage who has to pay thier own rent and you will find it why there is no incentive to work.

MarkF says:

01:44pm | 10/02/12

The point seems to have gone straight past you GM.  Didn’t say I expected tax payers to support her and yes we are quite happy to support all our kids until they can support themselves.  At 18 she is legally an adult not a child anymore yet the government wants to treat them as dependent children who don’t need anything.  And yes I can easily compare the $18.50 a week she was getting to the minimum wage and for the life of me I can see why you would want to stay on the dole and jump through the hoops instead of getting a job.  Maybe you can enlighten me how you would live on $18.50 a week.  I await your answer with baited breath.

Jane2 says:

02:50pm | 10/02/12

@Em, if you are on unemployment you dont need a weekly ticket, you need tickets to get you to job interviews.

If you have interviews every day for a week Im guessing you wont be on unemployment for long.

Btw, I do agree student allowances are tough but that is not what this is discussing.

MarkF says:

03:33pm | 10/02/12

Jane2 you seem to have missed a couple of things.  Rural and stuff all availability of public transport.  You might get one and a half trips for eighteen dollars and that doesn’t include all the time wasting stuff for Centrelink and job agencies that achieve nothing that you have to attend as well.  Don’t know where you live but here we have a bit over 500 people, 1 pub, 1 shop, 1 servo and of course a post office in town.  Opportunities are limited.  Yes she is looking at moving out to a bigger town with more opportunities but that also takes money.  Would be a lot easier if the old rail motor was still running but of course the dear state government killed them years ago.  Maybe she should walk for a couple of days to get to her appointments.  Good for her fitness I suppose.

gobsmack says:

06:48am | 10/02/12

I have to agree.
Working in a routine, boring job sucks but lots of people do it because the money earned allows them to go to the cinema, eat good food, buy new clothes etc..

TChong says:

07:16am | 10/02/12

yes, people out of work, regardless of why, need to be punished.
If you lost employment, whether your fault or not, you’d also be cool about being havinfg to live tough, as a deliberate strategy from the govt.?
Sure.

jf says:

07:16am | 10/02/12

There’s tough and there’s impossible.

By the author’s own admission it has increased with inflation; if it does need to increase in real terms I’m all ears.

Thankfully, whilst I’ve done it tough financially, I’ve never needed to use social security. If I’m sick or injured I have insurance.

If it is to low to live on with dignity the I’m all ears. However, the stories above from people who have been unemployed and who have had to live on it suggest that it doesn’t.

In fact the only whinge so far come from MarkF and acotrel whose complaint isn’t that it isn’t enough but that they are not getting enough because they already have plenty.

SD says:

07:43am | 10/02/12

I thought the whole point was the downward-envier conservatives despise people on the dole beacuse they ‘choose’ to be on the dole and they ‘have it too good’. Who’d want to be on the dole for that pitiful amount? I think it was about that much 20 years ago! In fact I can’t understand how anyone on the dole is not on the street!

Tim says:

08:43am | 10/02/12

TChong,
yes I would and have done so in the past. It’s nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with incentive.

I put myself through uni getting less than this for youth allowance and had to buy books and other essentials.
I found part time work to get me through. It wasn’t fun and I had to work a lot of different jobs but I did it.

Although I will say that the dole should be higher to start off with and drop over time to a minimum safety net amount. I also think workers should be forced to save a % of their pay into an unemployment account that they can draw on if they get unemployed.

jf says:

10:32am | 10/02/12

Tim says:09:43am | 10/02/12

“I also think workers should be forced to save a % of their pay into an unemployment account that they can draw on if they get unemployed. “

The legislation does enable people to release money from super if things become to dire.

Tim says:

11:32am | 10/02/12

jf,
yes it does but those funds are meant to be for retirement. I think we need a new system where an extra % is put an and much easier to access if you become unemployed.

jf says:

12:21pm | 10/02/12

Tim says:12:32pm | 10/02/12

“yes it does but those funds are meant to be for retirement. I think we need a new system where an extra % is put an and much easier to access if you become unemployed. “

Yep, agree with you on the first point.

However, I’m not a big fan of compelling people to do things (even for their own good) more than is necessary.

Individulals can always contribute more to super if they like knowing that they can get at it if necessary but still get hold of it when they retire. And they’d get a tax deduction for it.

Ricky-B says:

02:15pm | 10/02/12

T Chong, how exactly is giving the unemployed free monetary assistance & other benefits ‘punishing’ them? What a harsh punishment. Those in charge of handing out this free money to help the unemployed get back on their feet are pure evil arent they..?

Alyssa KT says:

10:01am | 10/02/12

My mother works in the employment industry - the amount of people who are not at all qualified but who are “waiting for a management role” is truly unbelievable!

This is on the Gold Coast though - why be on the dole anywhere else?!

Wynston Cruso says:

01:18pm | 10/02/12

The being selective thing is spot on Ray. I’ve known quite a few people who have refused to work crap jobs for money because they have certain other qualifications. Meanwhile I’ve worked some pretty horrible jobs whilst applying for more suitable ones, if you want the money you’ll go out and get it, instead of bitching and moaning because your tax payer funded handout doesn’t cover the cost of your ciggies.

Toastee says:

05:51pm | 11/02/12

Life is certainly about choices - but what choice do I have when I get retrenched? Oh, silly me! I should have said “no, I choose my job!” Want an increase in your pension? Should have chosen to deposit more! See? More choices!

Yet another baby boomer who thinks the world owes them just because they were born first. The original Generation ME.

Rose says:

08:34am | 10/02/12

...and if it’s so low it doesn’t get near to covering the basics?

Rose says:

08:34am | 10/02/12

...and if it’s so low it doesn’t get near to covering the basics?

Scotchfinger says:

08:37am | 10/02/12

Yes Hillsman, the fact that they spend their life buying smokes, drugs and playing pokies suggest they are indeed satisfied with their lot ha ha. Unlike the rest of us who have to make do with going out, seeing movies, trips to the coast etc etc. How I envy the long-term unemployed!!! Particularly those with kids; they get to see them all day, unlike me who misses mine while at work. The more indolent the lifestyle of the dole bludger, the happier he or she must be, surely??

Jo says:

08:24pm | 10/02/12

Hey at least if they are buying fags and booze they are paying some tax .....

Lori says:

08:38am | 10/02/12

Some doctors bulk bill, many dont. Specialists and diagnostic tests charge a gap fee, usually around $50. Listed Prescriptions are $5.80 each, free after a total of $348.
If a medicine is not listed, you pay full price.
Basic spectacles and frames cost only a $100 gap, if you have poor sight and require special lenses and frames to hold them, it can be up to $800 gap.
Most home medical equipment is not subsidised eg sleep apnoea machines.

Rose says:

08:39am | 10/02/12

A doctor is only free if they bulk bill, many don’t. What do you do if there are no bulk billing doctors in your area? A prescription is $5.80 (until you reach the safety net threshold), which may not be much to most of us but if you are living on benefits it’s probably a choice between the script and a meal..

patsy says:

09:00am | 10/02/12

In places like Ulladulla for one there are no doctors that bulk bill. I don’t understand this because I have elderly friends that live there. I don’t know how they afford it. So went to the hospital for free to get my prescription and they insisted on a chest xray . I told them to ring my doctor because I’ve had that many xrays I glow in the dark. So, I went back to the doctors and when I got my money from Medicare I only got $15 back. The scripts were $74 to fill.

James1 says:

09:01am | 10/02/12

“What do you do if there are no bulk billing doctors in your area?”

Find a job.  Pays much better than the dole, and comes with the added bonus of being able to afford doctors.  Either that, or you can wait at an emergency room for a few hours.  After all, its not like the unemployed have many other pressing engagements.

Em says:

09:45am | 10/02/12

You sound very much like a friend of mine.

I’m sad that it’s folks like you who suffer and get branded as a bludger along with the rest of the genuinely unemployed people.

TH says:

10:58am | 10/02/12

Same thing happened to my parents, failed business venture after mortgaging the house to pay for it and went under, they lost their house and I had to move back in with them to pay the rent so they weren’t out on the street. it’s not fun, they’re both on centrelink and applying for any job they can, my mum has been away from the work force for quite a while and my dad is ‘over qualified’ also so I feel your pain

PsychoHyena says:

11:45am | 10/02/12

Overqualified, too intelligent are words I hate. I did the applying for manual labour jobs, cleaning, all that. Every single time I got rejected because I’m “a highly intelligent person who will do well in any job”.

Apparently employers don’t expect you to be loyal anymore, they expect that you will move on. I ended up getting a job that while I absolutely hated the work and the hours, I did it until the business failed.

I was fiercely loyal to them because they gave me a chance, I’m fiercely loyal to my current employer for the same thing. Totally sucks being refused a job because you’re not dumb enough.

Your name:waving not drowning says:

12:58pm | 10/02/12

Your comment:if you’re lucky your contract will be extended and on the bright side having current employment is great for the resume.

I know how demoralising it is for my ex who is on the dole after working since his teens and being made redundant at 50 then becoming seriously ill.  The dole covers his rent and leaves him with about $80 a fortnight to manage everything else on including paying child support of $32 a month.  He’s not a bludger but he isn’t physically well enough to work now and I can see how depressed he has become with the constant struggle to make ends meet, it wouldn’t surprise me if he ended up committing suicide.

Rose says:

08:47am | 10/02/12

One of the most “entitled”, mean spirited, ignorant and stupid comments I have ever had the misfortune to read. You sir are an arsehole!!

Arthur says:

09:19am | 10/02/12

You are benevolent towards dole bludgers Rose, I’m not.

So let’s have a fair system where the deluded like yourself can fund their lifestyles while those that don’t agree with it get to keep the money we earned. What could be more fair?

Rose says:

09:50am | 10/02/12

You are absolutely clueless about the longterm unemployed. Do you really think that it’s a choice for the huge majority of them? Do you you really think that the pathetically low amount they receive is sufficient to help them get on their feet? Do you really think that a mutual obligation system which demands that they participate in onerous activities which are extremely unlikely to assist them into employment do anything but kick them when they’re down?
There are a few programs around which treat the long term unemployed with dignity, which apply case management principles which help people overcome the obstacles to getting work, which support clients in training which is specifically linked to employment outcomes, which get real, measurable results. The government should be looking at these programs and extending them, making them the basis of policy for the unemployed. These programs are also actually cheaper to run than paying the job networks for the revolving door service they provide to people with difficult circumstances.

Arthur says:

10:20am | 10/02/12

“You are absolutely clueless about the longterm unemployed. “

I don’t think I am. I’m all for any program that gets people working again. I just don’t agree with giving long term dole bludgers a lifestyle that’s even remotely similar to those that work.

There should be a massive amount of money spent on prevention. I can tell you as an ex teacher you can point to the ones in the class with 95% accuracy and predict which will never work, which will go to jail. This is where the money should be spent. Prevention.

I’m not an asshole Rose, I think we even agree money should be spent on prevention. Where we differ is I don’t think the answer is giving money to dole bludgers on a long term basis to do nothing. I see the outcomes of this lifestyle everyday. We are certainly not doing them any favours.

Let’s keep it in perspective Rose. My understanding is if you’re on trhe dole, you get subsidized medicine, travel, often housing, rent assistance, jobs programs, grants to startt business’s…..

It’s not $16 a day. If we going to debate this everyone, at least let’s be honest.

Rose says:

11:04am | 10/02/12

Our main point of disagreement seems to be that you find it appropriate to refer to people by derogatory terns such as “dole bludger” (stigma is also a massive part of the problem, it is a contributing factor to people not wanting to participate in the process of looking for work) while I just consider them people who need some time spent on them to a) identify the obstacles they face that have kept them out of unemployment,  b) acknowledge their disadvantage and help them take steps to overcome it c) ensure that the framework we use to address unemployment issues doesn’t actually become a contributing factor in keeping them unemployed

Tanya says:

03:42pm | 10/02/12

What a mean response, Arthur. Welfare is one of the things that makes Australia the country it is and I will NEVER object to contributing to it. Firstly, would you rather welfare didn’t exist an so that Australians were confronted with homeless, sick people sleeping on the streets and begging at the doors of shopping centres like the US, to say nothing of an uncontrollable crime rate?

Secondly, I don’t know anybody who is a dole bludger. Do you? What’s the criteria?

Thirdly, I don’t know what your circumstances are but you could very well end up an ‘entitled parasite’ yourself if the GFC continues.

It is a sad state of affairs when a Labor government refuses to increase benefits. I’m really starting to dislike them.

Arthur says:

09:31am | 10/02/12

“Look at the current crop of politicians they don’t deserve feeding but spend their time slurping at the trough & to hell with the rest of us”

Couldn’t agree more…............

It sounds like you’ve worked and contributed dweezy2176. I don’t think anyone is criticizing situations such as yours; I’m certainly not.

I hope you get well buddy.

Cynicised says:

12:58pm | 10/02/12

I agree with you, Sandrs, about the incentive to move to the disability pension. I know of several cases where a moderately inconvenient condition was used to transfer from  conditional unemployment benefits to the permanency of a pension. In one case, it suited the gentleman perfectly, since he had no taste for having a boss in a conventional employment situation. Believe me, his “disability” was not an impediment to normal employment. He was a brilliant con artist. He had the gall to tell me that he was set for life now on the pension, no more onerous pretend  work searches!

I am genuinely sympathetic to the unemployed who for the sake of their  dignity wish to find work they are capable of doing. They deserve to be treated with compassion and receive a benefit which is commensurate with an acceptable standard of living and supplying them with the means to find it, if that  means new clothes, support to relocate (which must be very difficult) and further education. I  do believe the current rate is not adequate.

I also understand that some people are unemployable, due to various reasons, many of which would not fall under any neat  psychological umbrella. We, as a civilized society have an obligation to support the weakest and most vulnerable members of our community. No-one should be living on the streets or starving. It therefore irks me greatly to know  that there is a small percentage out  there who selfishly and cynically rort the system. They help to stigmatize the genuine and increase the costs of helping those in real need.

Tim says:

08:31am | 10/02/12

Youth allowance is a sham. Uni students should be flipping burgers at maccas, not spongeing off the taxpayer.

James1 says:

08:44am | 10/02/12

It expects you to work that out.  Your personal finances are not Centrelink’s concern.  If you don’t have enough money, either make cut backs or find some work.  That’s what I did.

Get a hair cut and get a real job says:

09:21am | 10/02/12

Get a part-time job like nearly every other uni student out there! Geez, I managed to work about 15-20 hours a week in hospitality during uni (and full time hours in the breaks!) and so did all my friends who did degrees like engineering, law (ie. time consuming ones) etc.  Unless you have some sort of disability preventing you from working or are located in unawoopwoop (but if you are attending uni in person I doubt it) there is no excuse.

AdamC says:

09:24am | 10/02/12

I was on the youth allowance for a while, about ten years ago. I was studying full time and had been working part-time. At one point I realised I was now categorised as ‘independent’ and could claim youth allowance. So I took a bit of a leave of absence at the hard-working taxpayers’ expense. Whatever illusions I had then about welfare entitlements vanished after that.

Get rid of youth allowance and give the savings to our top universities. If they must fund something, governments should fund education, not students’ lifestyles.

Sarahh says:

10:01am | 10/02/12

I used my youth allowance when I was studying to cover my rent and that was it, I worked part time for any extra money.  You don’t need to have your degree already to work that out.

The hardest part I found was that you couldn’t avoid living pretty lean as a student.  If you earnt over a certain amount of money, your youth allowance decreased.  The problem was, you also had to get to your lectures etc so you couldn’t exactly get a full time job to make a decent amount to live off.  Nothing new about that though I guess.

TC says:

10:01am | 10/02/12

@Nic, Go get a job you clown!

Geez some people…..

Nic says:

11:20am | 10/02/12

I have a job (junior consultant - my hours sound the same as haircuts) - and I’ve had to extend my time at Uni by a year to get the timetable to line up in a way that makes it even close to possible while still maintaining decent grades. All it does is cuts my allowance down to 3/5 of nothing. We’re not all arts students with 8 contact hours a week. The point is, I get less than people who have no job *because* I’m training in order to make more money (and then pay more tax) in the future.

Kassandra says:

11:34am | 10/02/12

That’s $500 you get from other peoples’ taxes for doing diddly-squat. Be grateful you get anything at all. I had to survive on a lot less than that when I was a student. Like most of my friends and the uni students I teach now I got a part time job. You should try it. Some of my students now work two jobs part time while doing one of the toughest full-time courses on campus. And they don’t whinge.

cynic says:

01:37pm | 10/02/12

Ad there it is the Entitlement factor.  You could do what most people do and get a job.  You should think yourself darn lucky to get paid to study.

Ben C says:

03:52pm | 10/02/12

@ cynic

I was waiting for someone to see it for what it was.

Ricky-B says:

04:28pm | 10/02/12

Nic, $500 a fortnight is more than most first year apprentices get for slugging it out for 40 hours a week. Stop whinging. You get paid(by our taxes) to study. Consider yourself lucky, because you are hardly ‘doing it tough’ .

darthseditious says:

09:39am | 10/02/12

Arthur, crawl back under your rock and don’t come out will you. You have really no idea, you are just sprouting the crap you hear from messrs Jones and Bolt. I agree with one of the other replies to your ignorant rants. You, sir, are an arsehole.

Bill says:

09:49am | 10/02/12

@ dart - are you really so stupid that you don’t understand that Arthur’s post is just a joke? A bag of potatoes each week? You really thought that was meant to be serious? Wise up!

Arthur says:

09:56am | 10/02/12

Thanks for the well thought out and articulate argument darthseditious. It added a lot of value to your argument.

I don’t listen to either Jones or Bolt. I can form my own views. What I see is a whole lot of people sponging off the system you seem to advocate. If you’ve got anything sensible to add please do. I fear, like your socialist idiot government you do not.

Like I’ve already said, we’ll see when everyone has to work again whether people such as yourself have the same views. Ever watched “Survivor”. That’s human nature. What we have at the moment is a deluded sense of wealth. There’s nothing more certain than it ending.

Andrew says:

11:40am | 10/02/12

Darth, can you point out when jones or Bolt has said people on the dole shouldnt get help etc etc. Your just sprouting crap you hear from bolt/Jones haters. You sir, are an arsehole for sprouting such lies.

Cynicised says:

01:43pm | 10/02/12

Arthur is an aresehole. It doesn’t take much to work that out, just a brief perusal of his grumpy old codger posts. I doubt he has a humourous bone in his body, Bill.

And Andrew, anyone who defends Jones or Bolt is automatically dismissed as a nong.

Arthur says:

02:14pm | 10/02/12

@Cynicised “grumpy old codger posts”

I’ve had those same grumpy old codger ideals since I was a young bloke, and I’m actually not that old. Most sensible, successful people I know have the same ideas.

How anyone sees it as okay that some in society bludge off the rest of us I cannot comprehend.

I actually know how. We are, rather were, the land of plenty. Guess what Cynicised? We’re not any more. It’s all sold because of the apathetic voter such as yourself.

Like I said, when there’s less to share, we’ll see some ridiculous attitudes like yours change.

Again, ever watched Survivor? That’s human nature. You get the lefty socialist on that show and soon see them whinge about others not pulling their weight. Argue the point mate. Come up with an argument (it’s hard to argue the indefensible) and stop slandering Arthur.

Cynicised says:

02:36pm | 10/02/12

Arthur, just because many of the people you know have the same hyper-conservative, non-compassionate views of the world it doesn’t make them right. I object to the tone and the content of your post above. Unlike you, I’d don’t see reasonable support for people doing it tough in my wealthy society as ridiculous. Survival of the fittest is the ridiculous notion in a first world society, in my opinion.  I agree with you about those in less fortunate countries being deserving of my compassion as well.

I i’d also thank you to read my other post in this thread in reply to Sandra also to see that I do have a point of view and an argument on this subject.

Arthur says:

03:12pm | 10/02/12

@Cynicise I’m not hyper-conservative, non-compassionate. These are the views of someone that can actually see things for what they are.

” reasonable support for people doing it tough” .........This is not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about chronic unemployment that is often generations of families that have never worked. Is this fair on them? Of course not. They often suffer terrible self esteem, alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling problems, abuse, violence. Killing people with kindness.

“in my wealthy society” You’re missing the very basis of what I’m saying. We are no longer rich. We’ve sold everything worth selling, our personal and national debt increasing and still we live beyond our means. This does not sound wealthy to me. Manufacturing’s dead, farming yields are declining, mining is 85% foreign owned….....Successive governments have done a hell of a job wrecking Australia, it will be our grand kids that will really suffer for our indulgence’s. Is this the fairness socialists mean?

Read my posts and understand what I’m saying. I’m not an arsehole, I’m a pragmatic person that sees gaping holes in socialist ideas.

Socialism always ends in tears.

M. Thatcher said socialism works until the socialists run out of other people’s money.

Cynicised says:

03:54pm | 10/02/12

Arthur, your post above re “the sack of potatoes” and your ideas about dole blusters dies not paint you as compassionate person. It has been pointed out by many here that the actual ( not mythical) percentage of generational unemployed is very small. This article is discussing increasing help for those who are in genuine need. It isn’t socialism, it’s commpassiion to help our fellow countrymen to help themselves.

Besides, where do you think we live? Somalia? Of course we’re still wealthy by world standards. In fact our GDP rose this year, if I’m not mistaken.

http://www.dundas.com/Libraries/DV_Gallery/015Treemap.png

Cynicised says:

04:17pm | 10/02/12

Arrgh! Autocorrect again..“dole bludgers” and “does not paint”

Re the above GDP table, on a per capita basis which is taken as a measure of standard of living, the evidence is even more obvious of our wealth.

Bole Dodger says:

08:44am | 10/02/12

Look for a job only on 24 July, eh. Good one. Like it.

Tubesteak says:

11:17am | 10/02/12

Nah, it’s my brother’s birthday

Rose says:

09:01am | 10/02/12

The nominated figure is to increase it by $50 per week. The reason the dole entrenches unemployment, as does mutual obligation, is that the payment is so low that people cannot actually afford to pay the costs of looking for a job, decent clothing, dental & medical care, personal hygiene items, bus fare or car costs, child care for dependent kids etc. Mutual obligation often ends up in the unemployed having onerous obligations, which costs money they don’t have, with little chance that the activities wil result in employment.
Unemployment benefits for some on a short term basis may be adequate, but if for any reason it takes longer than a month or two to get a job (which is not always the fault of the unemployed) it becomes a contributing factor to entrenched poverty and longer term unemployment. I don’t expect many people to understand this, it’s far easier to be self righteous and judgemental but it is a well researched and documented FACT, commonly referred to as the ‘poverty trap’

Michael says:

09:55am | 10/02/12

“I don’t expect many people to understand this”

Just wondering Rose, have you been on Newstart yourself or are you commenting based on your observation of others?

SOSB says:

10:04am | 10/02/12

Rose - that’s bullshit. Having been in the same situation as Michael above (I too lost my job during the GFC and had to claim Newstart for around 4 months). Need fares to get to an interview? Your Job Network Provider will give you the money for the train ticket. Need new work clothes? Same deal - you literally go to the shop, pick out a couple of outfits and place them on lay-by, and someone from the JNP will go down there and pay for the lay-by on their corporate credit card. Decide you want to do a course? No worries, here’s a backpack full of assorted stationery that you ‘might’ need. Plus the course is paid for so any number of qualifications others are paying hundreds of dollars for are free to you if you’re on the dole.

The cash from Centrelink is only part of the network. There are plenty of other freebies out there as well, and that’s before you even mention the charities paying utility bills for people and handing out Coles vouchers. Except that - and I happen to have experience of this, having also worked for Centrelink - the charities obviously have finite resources and a fair proportion are allocated to the same bums every fortnight. The ones who call Centrelink the day after ‘pay day’ to ask for a referral because the money has all been spent. Dare to ask how on earth they’ve spent over $500 in less than 24 hours (and yes, it is over that amount if Rent Assistance is being claimed. Never mind that the rent usually doesn’t get paid) - and be prepared for the most vile torrents of abuse you’ll ever cop.

I hated being on the dole because I’ve been raised not to be a bludger. Plenty haven’t. And I didn’t go out, eat the food I wanted, or buy any luxuries either. On the other hand, I didn’t lose my house or my car while I was looking for work. And I actually was seriously looking for work. There’s a whole lot less outlay when ‘looking for work’ actually consists of copying down phone numbers from job ads in the paper once a fortnight and writing them on your dole form.

Tator says:

10:20am | 10/02/12

Rose,
I have no problem with mutual obligation.  In my opinion, people on welfare benefits should be doing work for the dole for at least the same amount of time it would take to earn that money on the minimum wage.  this is because I have seen the results of people receiving welfare without any responsibility.  I have witnessed hundreds of third generation welfare dependant families where not one member of the family had ever held a job and many were well on the way to their fourth generation as well.  I have also dealt with the social fall out from welfare dependancy from the bored antics of youth who develop antisocial behaviours from sitting home on welfare and not developing any form of work ethic to the massive social costs from substance abusers who commit armed hold ups to fund their habits creating trauma for those innocently involved in these criminal acts.  And that is not even addressing the social issues caused by the career single mothers who have children just for the money. (mind you - most single mothers are not like that, but there are enough careerists to put a decent hole in the budget.)  But then again, my view is jaded from spending years trying to sort out the problems they cause.  It is nearly impossible to fix issues in the short time coppers have with these members of society as they have taken years to develop.
So if you want to pay them more, by all means do so, but they need to contribute more to society rather than leech off of it and that means more mutual obligation work for the dole etc. TANSTAAFL

Rose says:

10:24am | 10/02/12

Mchael I have never been on Newstart but have spent the past few years studying public policy, particularly in terms of social planning issues. Once you look passed the headlines and look at the very real issues people face you develop an entirely different picture of what’s really going on. I used to be part of the ‘get a hair cut and get a real job’ brigade but have since learned that for many there are very real reasons that it’s not as straightforward as that. I still believe that people will always be better off if they are employed and self supporting, but acknowledge that the framework we have, while not too bad if you are educated, skilled, have support and are relatively new to unemployment, is actually, in itself, a significant cause of entrenched unemployment for the most disadvantaged and marginalized.
It’s time Australians stopped kidding themselves that we’re operating on a level playing field, we aren’t. There are people so far behind the eight ball that they need far more assistance than others. As I mentioned before, there are some excellent programmes getting incredible results for these people and they should be looked at and built on. There are also other people who, for various reasons, are more than likely, permanently unemployable. These people need permanent support and should receive it along with appropriate case management.
The sad thing is that putting in place the proper framework to provide real case management and achieve good outcomes is actually cheaper in the medium-long term than the current failing system. It’s just politically more attractive to beat up on the disadvantage and so that has become the norm.

AdamC says:

10:44am | 10/02/12

Rose, I think you and the others here agree on more than you think.

The fact is that simplty giving people money indefinitely is not going to accomplish anything. You appear to acknowledge this in your comment, where you point out that less able unemployed people need intensive case management and other assistance. That is not incompatible with re-orienting Newstart towards being more of a short-term entitlement.

“There are also other people who, for various reasons, are more than likely, permanently unemployable. These people need permanent support and should receive it along with appropriate case management.”

See, I don’t agree with this. The state should not be in the business of supporting people cradle-to-grave. If someone appears chronically unable to work, we need to have programs in place to address why that is the case. Or are you suggesting we have people languishing on welfare their whole lives?

Rose says:

11:20am | 10/02/12

Unfortunately we will always have a tiny number of people who do languish on welfare their entire lives and yes I believe the state needs to support them, along with case management. The state needs to do this to try and prevent them turning to crime or otherwise being a damaging influence on their communities.
i absolutely believe the solution is not to throw money at the problem indefinitely though. Any resources used should be specifically targeted to programmes which are proven to be effective, with evidential studies not anecdotal evidence. I believe that at its current rate unemployment benefits are too low as they need to at least be sufficient to allow a basic standard of living while also being enough to ensure that the unemployed person has the resources to look for work. I believe there needs to be acknowledgement that some people have issues that need to be addressed before employment is viable.
Ultimately on this thread is a misconception that short term and long term unemployment is the same thing. They are two very different beasts and are actually addressed differently.

Andrew says:

11:51am | 10/02/12

Sorry, but this is BS. If you have a chance of getting a job and you want that job you will find a way to get there.  If you have a chance of getting a job but you go Oh wo is me I cant get there, then the reality is that you dont really want that job, you dont really want to get off the dole, you just want to blame everything and everyone else for your problems.

I hate pies says:

01:00pm | 10/02/12

I’m with Andrew. Rose lives in the hypothetical world of university and it’s socialist ideology. Here’s a real-world outlook for you - my mother has managed job network employment agencies for a good ten years. Many, many of the people she pulled her hair over trying to get a job just simply do not want to work. They have every excuse under the sun, and they don’t present themselves properly or have proper hygiene. When they finally get a job they last about 2 days, decide it’s too hard to get up every morning, and quit. There are many people like this in every town in the country. The unfortunate thing is that it’s generational and will only get worse. The scary thing is that there’s no point cutting their dole off because they will just steal what they want instead of getting off the government.

Fiona says:

04:45pm | 10/02/12

I would love to know what decade you’re talking about jane2 those figures sound close to my budget figures in the early 90s and I was a frugal spender with only 2 little kids.
I don’t know about public transport where you live, but in and around Brisbane it costs a fortune. I’ve seen a lot of ads for share housed rooms lately, all $100 or over/week.

Peter L. says:

09:15am | 10/02/12

Yes but there are none :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFrgkTibP_o

Wynston Cruso says:

01:23pm | 10/02/12

It’s pronounced J?b, and he is excellent in Arrested Development. I fail to see how getting him will help…

KimL says:

08:42am | 10/02/12

I think its disgraceful, if these people want to come here, they should be able to provide for themselves. Why should the taxpayer pay for there lifetime holiday in Australia.

Jen says:

09:50am | 10/02/12

Colly,
It’s sad that you’ve simply accepted the trash media line about the economic impact of refugees instead of doing a shred of research about the truth of it. While there have not been many studies in Australia, the overwhelming evidence from overseas, which is supported by the small number of studies here, indicates that on average refugees actually have a net positive impact on the economy after a 5 year period:
http://www.crr.unsw.edu.au/.../Refugees_and_Economic_Contributions.pdf

The fact is that refugees are a long-term positive net benefit to the economy, while other categories of migrants - such as family migrants are not. Yet we take in around 8 times as many family migrants than we do refugees.  If you want to get angry about a category of migrants draining the economy, the facts demonstrate that you should get angry about people sponsoring their parents, wives, kids etc to come here. Not about refugees.

Look into the facts before you repeat what you see on A Current Affair.

On another note, thank you Antony for raising a really important issue. I think many people have misunderstood (or chosen to ignore, based on prejudice) the basic point that if social security is too low then it can actually prevent people from getting a new job. When you can’t afford to go to the dentist, or eat fresh food, you eventually start to suffer health problems, which makes you ultimately less employable. Not being able to afford to take care of yourself and your family also increases the likelihood that you will begin to suffer from mental illness, which further decreases your chances of getting a job.

While taxpayers might resent paying for unemployed people to socialise, the fact is that if they can’t afford to, they lose their social confidence and networks, and they become less and less employable. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that social security should provide a lifestyle where people can have everything they want.  But $20 a week spare to play in a sports team, go to a movie, have a beer at the pub, or in some other way interact with other people is a human need.

Rose says:

09:57am | 10/02/12

You guys obviously watch far too much Today Tonight and A Current Affair!

Tator says:

10:45am | 10/02/12

Jen,
that research paper was published in 2005.  The statistics that Colly was referring to was published last year so basically only counted the refugees that have arrived since 2006 AFTER your paper was published.  Plus since that paper was published, the makeup of arrivals has changed from mainly refugees picked from camps to more who have chosen to arrive as irregular maritime arrivals due to the ALP’s changes in refugee policies.

Dan says:

08:41am | 10/02/12

Are you kidding? That’s a classic Tele beat-up, with no actual evidence beyond circumstantial quotes from various employers.

Did they contact any employment services, for their view on the matter? Did they even speak to any of these dole-bludgers, to whom they refer? Did they speak to any of the numerous academics, who specialise in this area? Please.

What a load of garbage. For the record, the cleaner at my work-place is a middle-aged woman with kids and grandkids, with English as her first language. But that proves absolutely nothing - much like the crap linked above.

Arthur says:

09:24am | 10/02/12

Dan, you can deflect as much as you like. I personally know many employers that cannot even get people to an interview. On the rare occasion they do (as a requirement to satisfy the dole) they purposely mess the interview up, or worse start and are so appalling they are sacked….Straight back on the gravy train. It’s reality even if you choose to not see it.

It’s well documented fruit growers have struggled to get pickers for decades, despite the often high unemployment in those areas. What a system hey?

Andrew says:

12:03pm | 10/02/12

Dan, you need to get your head out of your arse. They spoke to the people who are employing these people, dont you think they might have some idea on wether they can find workers or not, oh of course not, what would the actual employers know, lets speak to ‘academics’, they would know more. Also, the fact that Chris Bowen has decided he needs to introduced a special visa, to help out these industries, might actually indicate that he believes that the ‘‘story’’ is true. Also you get paid the same wether your a local or a immigant so why would these industries look overseas if they didnt have to.

James1 says:

08:48am | 10/02/12

My sister in law is a single mum on the dole, and she was recently complaining that Centrelink stopped paying her until she had spent $5000-odd she had somehow managed to save.  When I put it to her that this is fair enough, because the dole isn’t a wage and is only meant to cover basics, and that if you can save while you receive it you are probably receiving too much, she got mad at me. 

I have come across many similar attitudes in the long term unemployed, and it comes across as just plain ungrateful.  After all, we could just leave them to their own devices, rather than subsiding their incomes, housing, prescriptions, bus fares, day care, etc.

Rose says:

09:34am | 10/02/12

Your sister-in-law managed to save $5ooo while she was on the dole, she deserves a bloody medal. that is an awesome effort. You should be proud of her, not publicly having a dig at her.

Scotchfinger says:

09:36am | 10/02/12

@James1, you are suggesting that your sister in law is unreasonable to be allowed to keep some of her savings, rather than live on them until the cupboard is bare. At the same time, she is raising a child on her own. You have an interesting sociological viewpoint; perhaps you feel she should prostitute herself rather than accept a few crumbs from fellow Australians? Of course I know nothing of her circumstances, but your stance seems a trifle harsh to me. I pay taxes and I accept that some people are, for a period of time, unemployable. I also accept that my taxes go towards corrupt officials in PNG, Indonesia, Middle East etc. Frankly, I would rather support my fellow Australians, good and bad, than half the idiotic schemes we have in this country. It sounds like you would be happier in the USA; please feel free to visit those areas where there is no ‘safety net’ such as downtown Chicago. Your economic theories would elicit quite a response, particularly from single mothers. Good luck! PS are you known as a ‘family man’?

AdamC says:

09:44am | 10/02/12

James1, did she have to spend it over a period of time, or could she splurge on a holiday or something? It is an interesting situation, as Centrelink could encourage a form of decadence by enforcing a ‘spend it now’ requirement.

BTW, this sister in-law of yours comes up quite often in your comments. You don’t seem to get along too well.

Scotchfinger says:

10:06am | 10/02/12

Maybe he gets along with her very well indeed but denies it publicly… whose child did she really have?? Oh the guilt!

Ha ha just joking James1!

James1 says:

01:02pm | 10/02/12

Rose, I am having a dig at her entitlement attitude.  I hate the idea that she believes the state owes her a living (and even savings) even though her child is at school and she is perfectly capable of getting a job, and well qualified to boot.

Scotchfinger, my point is that a person who lives on the state has no right to anything more than what they need to survive: that is, accommodation, food and transport.  Anything else, like entertainment and savings, is a luxury that the state and the taxpayer should not be supporting.  What I actually feel is that if she wants more money and the ability to save, she should get a job, as it is not the role of the state to hand out luxuries to unproductive citizens.  If she chooses prostitution, that is her choice, but I would recommend any other job than that, personally.  I support the welfare safety net, but think that if people can save money on it then perhaps it is somewhat too generous.  I am a family man as it happens, and I imagine I am known as that around The Punch.  Thankfully, I have played no part in the formation of that particular single parent family…

Adam, Centrelink didn’t say.  So she splurged on a new television and home entertainment system, and was back on Newstart the next week.  By not specifying, it seem Centrelink did encourage the splurge.  We do not get along well at all - she is always seeking ways to make my wife’s life more difficult, and I am a little resentful of that (as well as her entitlement attitude) as you can probably tell.  Plus she owes us a few thousand dollars for various loans my wife is too kind to ask be repaid.

jade (the other one) says:

01:13pm | 10/02/12

@Scotchfinger - I for one would rather see her prostituting herself. I don’t really have much problem with prostitution as a legitimate career choice. It’s certainly better to do something like that and contribute to society than take from it.

If she can save $5000 on the dole, then that is $5000 that she could instead have been putting towards her child’s education, or towards bettering her own skillset to be able to get a job. That is the material point.

me says:

01:29pm | 10/02/12

Centrelink allow people to have some assets like a house, but savings have to be used first. 

What sickens me is that we pay welfare to people who have assets that could be utilised to support themselves.

Fiona says:

04:24pm | 10/02/12

Tgood god! What dictatorship are you living in?
Far better would be to give store credits/ vouchers for supermarkets, power supply and phone companies etc, not random drug tests.

Jason Todd says:

01:28am | 11/02/12

Jamin - Seeing a similar argument in the states at the moment for the call for drugs testing of all those recieving public money.

Kind of had a hole blown in it by Stephen Colbert, when he asked the congressman spearheading the initiative if he would be willing to submit to random drug screenings, considering that the taxpayer pays his wage too.

Rarely have I seen a public figure twist in the wind so uncomfortably while trying to worm his way out of an argument.

Dave says:

08:35am | 10/02/12

Well said Mark G. I get Urine tested so that i can work hard and earn my paycheck. There should be mandatory drug analysis done on all welfare recipients.

Mark G says:

08:55am | 10/02/12

“Australian benefits are about the lowest in the OECD.”

You mean next to OECD members like Greece? A country that is now having to impose Austerity measures because of government debt, inefficiency and wasteful spending. Yes sounds like a great comparison.

” living on just $245 a week must be ‘‘a humbling if not traumatic experience’‘.”

No, living in a war torn country or living in an African villiage when the neigbouring villiages from a different tribe are hacking your family members to peices is a “Humbling and Traumatic experience”. Having to allow your baby to starve to death so that you can survive the famine in Africa is a “humbling and Traumatic experience”. Living on $245 a week is a minor inconvieniece that may lead to a mild mental disorder but only if you are living in a western country.

John says:

01:33pm | 10/02/12

Come on mark, the reason why you have a job if because someone else doesn’t. How about you tell you employer to cut you hours in half so that someone on the dole cue can have a part-time job?

The unemployed are unemployed because there are no jobs, they are less skilled, less experienced and are rejected by the system till the point they give up.

Lord Jesus Christ says:

09:09am | 10/02/12

Get a Job

Given them a sack of potatoes

Their dole cheque covers their booze and their smokes

When I was living in Jerusalem I was on one fish a day. These unemployed bums have it easy.

JT says:

09:25am | 10/02/12

@prosperity I am not religious at all but yes it probably is something he would say. A googled copy and paste gives me these Proverbs:

All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty” (14:23).
“Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. He who gathers crops in the summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son” (10:4,5).
“One who is slack in his work is a close relative of one who destroys” (18:9).
“Sluggards do not plow in season; so at harvest time they look but find nothing” (20:4).
“The cravings of sluggards will be the death of them, because their hands refuse to work” (21:25).

Scotchfinger says:

10:44am | 10/02/12

@JT, I believe Jesus would implore those who are unemployed to seek solace in God and await the end of days, but also to be grateful for what they have. And He would urge castigators such as yourself to look to the beam in your own eye before judging another. Somehow I think he would spend more time with you - ‘does a physician seek out the healthy?’

bec says:

05:58am | 11/02/12

Hey JT, you know Proverbs is all *Old* Testament, right? Like, as in, not Jesus?

Mark G says:

09:02am | 10/02/12

Employers would fix it if it wasn’t for the restrictive employment policies of the labour government. Most businesses cant afford to employ more staff. Welcome to the world run by union power and ridiculous and inflexible wage arrangements. Do you think that raising unemployment benefits will solve this?

Mayday says:

10:55am | 10/02/12

How can you be picky when there is no job?

I cannot get full time work even though I retrained and have worked for almost 40 years and paying tax.

I am one of many single women in their fifties who are underemployed and do not own their own home, I will eventually have to leave Sydney because I will not be able to afford the ever increasing rent and food costs.

I have mothered two adult children who work full time and pay taxes and I cared for my elderly mother for two years without taking the carer allowance.

I now take the unemployment benefit when I don’t get enough hours which riles some of you hard bastards but what other option do I have?

I spend a lot of time looking for work and doing “training courses” and I am under constant stress trying to find a way out of the financial straitjacket I’m in.

I have a life not a lifestyle and you sir have no style whatsoever.

tim says:

11:36am | 10/02/12

consider:
- greeter at bunnings
- truck driver in a mine
- admin assistant in a mine
- toilet cleaner in a mine

all jobs a mid fifties woman can do with no training, and all jobs that are available right now.

oh and my style is awesome.

John says:

01:46pm | 10/02/12

Australia’s unemployment rate is really like 15%, when you add the students and those who a work a few hours a week. The reality is the skilled look down on the under-skilled and think there are jobs for them when there are not.

Paul Horn: says:

03:29pm | 10/02/12

Mayday,
My wife works as a disability support worker for a major Not for Profit organisation. They can never get enough staff to fill the available shifts and are always on the lookout for peple like you who are free to work part time and take any shift available.

I suggest you contact Anglicare or similar. They should be able to advise you what sort of training is needed if required and then get you on board quick smart. 

All the Best.

Tator says:

10:48am | 10/02/12

Zeta,
forget about the beer, three packs of cigarettes at todays prices would cover that difference

Scotchfinger says:

10:58am | 10/02/12

@Paul D, I believe the advanced scheme you have in mind is called ‘saving money while you are working’ and it is something smart people already have signed up to. Although it is not of course a government policy.

Fiona says:

05:39pm | 10/02/12

I thought so too.

Ken says:

09:29am | 10/02/12

I’m thinking of taking up ‘criminal activity’. At least I’ll be housed & fed 3 times a day if I get caught, all for free. Hey I’m an introvert, I don’t need to go out.

JT says:

09:31am | 10/02/12

@Dan are you for real?

Every point you made is another bullet in your own foot.

‘‘Most are no-hopers’’ - simple solution, stop being no hopers. If you lack the motivation to even attempt to improve your lot then I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.

‘‘Employers looking for low-paid workers usually opt for young new immigrants, who have a reputation as hard-working and easy to manage.’’ - wow, here’s an idea. Show you can work hard and earn the same reputation these immigrants have.

‘‘There is a bounty of low-paid work in regional areas - fruit-picking, farm work, even some mining jobs. But for those on $115 per week, raising the capital to even get out West is nearly impossible.’’ As I understand it the unemployed are entitled to one off loans per year. Plenty enough capital to make the move and take part in the bounty of low paid work.

‘‘Many of these people worked their own way into these situations, through a path of substance abuse, criminal activity, or any other variety of reasons’’ Yes so why should I have any sympathy for them?

‘‘For others, it was just bad luck.’’ We all have that at times.

‘’ It’s the welfare of our very lowliest citizen that matters most. And right now, we’re letting them down.’’ No it’s not and no we are not.

Jen says:

10:00am | 10/02/12

@ Ken raises an interesting point. Why are we happy to pay $100,000 p.a. to keep someone in prison, but complain about spending $11,000 p.a. to provide someone who hasn’t committed a crime with the basic provisions they need to live outside of a prison?

Andrew says:

12:11pm | 10/02/12

Most of us arnt happy to spend $100,000 p.a keeping someone in prison

TH says:

02:57pm | 10/02/12

actually I have no problem paying to keep people in prison, they’re there for a reason

Bitten says:

04:04pm | 10/02/12

“Employers looking for low-paid workers usually opt for young new immigrants, who have a reputation as hard-working and easy to manage.”

OMG, no way?!! You mean, employers are keen to employ employees who work hard and aren’t a right royal entitled lazy selfish pain in the arse?

State the obvious contest candidates: we have a winner!

Andrew says:

09:41pm | 10/02/12

TH, its not that there in prison thats the problem, its that ot costs $100000 p/a to keep them there, most of these people have a better life in prison, no wonder they keep offending.

Mark G says:

10:49am | 10/02/12

I was unemployed for six months when I was younger. I collected Unemployment benefits and was emensly grateful. So greatful that a spend every moment studying by correspondance and doing everything I could to get suitably employed. I lived on the cheap and used public transport. Most of all, at no stage did I ever winge that I was not getting enough money from the Australian taxpayers. I was thankful for what I was getting because it was a means to an end.

Someone on the pension may have had periods where they were unemployed but I assure you that they were probably living on far less than the unemployed of today. They are also at a stage of their live were they need to stop working because of age. That is not a choice nor is it cause by poor decisions made in the past; its a reality. Sure some long term unemployed are not in a postion to work but that is often because of choices that they have made in the past. This not the fault of the Australian taxpayer. If you cannot work because of a ligitimate disability then you recieve other allowances. Australia is a country that gives everyone a ‘fair go’. This statement refers to equal opportunity. If you dont take that opportunity then dont expect the recieve equal entitlements. Thats not dog eat dog, thats just life.

bigmuzz says:

10:12am | 10/02/12

agreed, that’s what i say to anyone who complains about not being able to find work. once you have your RSA/RCG you can work anywhere in pubs/clubs, sure it’s part time and the hours suck but its good enough to help you get through tafe/uni.

i think that some schools these days even offer RSA/RCG training to their students in year 11/12 now so they are set up for when they graduate high school and are able to find a quick part time job when deciding what to do with their future.

AdamC says:

09:59am | 10/02/12

Julia’s Law?

Mark G says:

12:19pm | 10/02/12

Yes because everyone who argues against increases in social security is an elitist sitting in an ivory tower. Most minimum wage workers struggling to make a living in shit jobs with shit conditions would probably tell you otherwise. They work none the less. I think these people would have the most legitimate argument against raising social security to levels that compete with their wages.

marley says:

08:56am | 11/02/12

You know, I did a trip last year around the Kimberley.  Everywhere I went, the hotel receptionists, the bar tenders, the waiters, the sales assistants, even the people working in the local info centers, were foreigners - Irish, Canadian, Italian, French, German - and why?  Because Australians wouldn’t take those jobs.  The tourist industry and quite a bit of the agricultural industry as well both depend on foreign labour because it’s beneath Aussies to do that work.  So don’t blame Immigration for handing the jobs over to foreign workers;  blame Australians.

Richard says:

12:33am | 14/02/12

To PW
  I agree for some people a car is not a necessity, however where there is NO public transport it becomes one. As a person receiving a part Newstart payment which to be honest I am embarrassed about having to   apply for in the first place I use the car as sparingly as possible. I unlike the majority of the unemployed don’t drink or smoke which a number of correspondents think that all unemployed people do along with watching Oprah.  I am in the second part of my life as well. I also manage to pay something towards my Super. The trouble with the Job Search companies when trying to get funding is your category. I am a level 1 which means I am job ready so fat chance trying to get any funding for travel,boots,clothing or training.

jf says:

11:03am | 10/02/12

“magic job creation machine that is private industry”

It’s the greatest, sustainable job creation machine known to mankind.

jf says:

12:17pm | 10/02/12

It offends me as an old Liberal that people assume that all conservative people are hard right wing.

Being conservative doesn’t, for most people, mean that one also doesn’t believe in providing a safety net for the genuinely disenfranchised and disadvantaged in our society.

James1 says:

11:34am | 10/02/12

Employers should be able to offer parental leave if they so choose, but otherwise I agree.

Bitten says:

04:13pm | 10/02/12

Actually Shane, short term unemployment, the aged pension, DSP (for genuine cases, not ‘oh noes, my back’ or ‘oh, my diabetes because I’m a useless fat boozer’) and carers pension are the only forms of social welfare that can be justified. Everything else is just vote-purchasing from lazy and gutless politicians who should be ashamed of themselves and how badly they have bred a welfare state in this country.

Australians R Bunnies says:

04:30pm | 10/02/12

And then there’s the type that use government support to finance lifestyle choices like having a house/apartment all to themselves. They are too precious/intolerant/selfish to share their living space with another human being.

Mikey says:

12:41pm | 10/02/12

Cutting off long-term unemployed seems like a good idea, until you hit bad economic times. Then you have a situation similar to what the US is in now, where several million people have been cut off from unemployment benefits because of the length of the recession and persistence of high unemployment. These peoples spending drops to near-zero, their families spending decreases (as they have to support their now non-income relatives) and the whole economy suffers as a result.

Of course, it easy to say “well in those circumstances we’d increase the time limit on benefits” but in reality (as they have in the US) conservatives will fight tooth and nail against it.

There’s also the argument that giving money to those who don’t work is actually better for society as a whole, than cutting them off. While on the dole they are less likely to turn to crime (and incur the costs associated with policing and the criminal justice system), they still circulate money in the economy through their spending and they are not a financial burden on charities or their families.

Australians R Bunnies says:

04:44pm | 10/02/12

‘Government handouts are for people in need, not to maintain some utopian lifestyle.’ That’s what the right said for nearly a century until Howard stopped pushing against the Left.  He basically said: you want a socialist State you got one.  Redirected the benefits to the Middle.  And while the Left have been distracted trying to solve this problem foreign interests have been helping themselves to Australia’s bounty.

It’s difficult to decide which side is best at looking after the interests of OUR community: Australia.

Australians R Bunnies says:

03:44pm | 10/02/12

If you can’t believe it then you’re another ignorant bunny Aussie like me.  WOW us Aussies can be so dumb. What an easy target to divide and conquer. Get the $40K pa to fight with the $80K pa and you can tap them all.

All the latest numbers are published for all to see at http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/fbo/html/index.htm

For details of the $356b bill for 2010-11 see Appendix A.

Assistance to the Aged was $44b. I.e. 12.4%

Total bill for ‘Social security and welfare’ was $117b.

Given how much I’m taxed the entire exercise of taxing me and then paying some back when I have kids and then get old makes the whole exercise one giant forced savings scheme. An insurance scheme. If I don’t have kids - I won’t need the family asistance. If I die early - I won’t need the aged care. Fine by me - so long as it’s well and fairly managed.

Hence the spin branding: ‘middle class welfare’. In practice it’s not actually welfare when you’ve tipped buckets of your own wealth into the pot - it’s far more akin to forced savings plan or an insurance scheme.

It’s like that other favourite spin term coming from Canberra. I.e redefine ‘means testing’ to equate to ‘income testing’. Too hard to count assets so Citizen A owning her own home outright with an income of $40Kpa gets the same payout as Citizen B who has to pay 40% of her $40Kpa as rent or mortgage interest.

AdamC says:

03:23pm | 10/02/12

“If you live in a nation where social welfare is neglible, non existant or time limited you can guarantee you’re living with a high crime rate.”

One word: Singapore.

St. Michael says:

10:06pm | 10/02/12

@ AdamC: to be fair, Singapore has a rather unique advantage in that it concentrates a massive population in a very, very small geographical area—a population that is largely homogenous racially and the dominant race of which has some serious issues (morals?) about welching off the public purse (had there been one anyway).  That makes it very easy to police and easy to instill cultural norms in favour of work and against welfare.

Its law and order model of caning graffiti artists and shooting drug dealers looks superficially attractive, but when you start getting into areas like human rights or freedom of religion, it perhaps isn’t quite as nice.  Specifically, there’s freedom of religion so long as said religion does not comment on social issues at all—and in particular does not criticise the government.  Singapore is still the sort of place where you tell jokes about the ruling party with a quick look around to check that nobody’s listening.

On the other hand, there’s an interesting book called “The Welfare State We’re In” that suggests perennial welfare programs actually generate the very poverty they seek to stem.  In most European OECD countries this would appear to be the existence—even in the democracies the left likes to point at as “successful socialism” of Norway, Sweden, or the Netherlands.

TracyS says:

02:42pm | 12/02/12

Singapore has some very interesting systems which work efficiently for them as they are a very small nation (around 5 million) but may not work in a countries with a larger population. Whilst Singapore has negligible social welfare, it also has high levels of investment in public services such as education and health. It also has an interesting levy system where a much larger percentage of a person’s pay is set aside than what we do for superannuation, and if there is a period of unemployment then that fund can be accessed for living expenses and health care expenses - in effect allowing people to insure themselves against periods of unemployment with their own funds. It is very much a culture of personal responsibility.
Social welfare is an important safety net for a compassionate society, but needs to be balanced with incentive to return to work if you don’t want to end up with entrenched, intergenerational welfare dependence.  There needs to be less of a sense of entitlement and more taking on of responsibility to put the effort in to improve one’s own lot in life.

Patricia Barton says:

12:43pm | 11/02/12

As a young child (18mnths) I was removed from my mother and placed into a state Welfare instituton, as a neglected and abused child. The same happened to my younger sister later. Our grandmother fought to get “care and control” of us. There was no goverment support for her othe than continued visits by the authorities to inspect our housing and welfare. Nana was elderly and had a small hobby farm, which, beside a small aged pension she operated for extra income.
We as little girls grew up with the work ethic, and because we were so happy to be with Nana, we did everything we could to help her. We had our own vegetable garden, 2 cows, which, she taught us to milk, along with the seperator machine which took cream from the milk. With the cream we helped her to make butter. She made her own bread. Excess vegetables, butter & milk were sold. Then she started buying 1day old chicks and they were raised to sell. We would kill, pluck and clean them, for sale. We killed our own sheep, pigs, turkeys, ducks and so on. We never expected or even thought of hand-outs. Water was gathered from the creek for the garden ... and it was my job to empty the toilet pan every week and bury it. I’m not goung back to the good old days, because they were hard old days, but they gave us a firm grounding and a respect for others. I truly believe governments of all persuasions have deliberatley created the “Welfare Stat”, and it has now come back to haunt them. I worked as a Community Welfare worker with a particular organisation, and I was told many times :this is our right”. At odd times those in need would arrive in a taxi, to get clothing, food etc. I don’t call these people bludgers, but they are a sad indictment on governments and society.

stephen says:

08:11pm | 11/02/12

An anonymous phone call should do it.
And all major fruit-picking areas in Oz have a Fairwork rep close by.
Check with the local council.

St. Michael says:

05:05pm | 16/02/12

“Strange how the largest companies dont ever seem to care if their staff are union or not, heck in some industries they encourage the unions as it allows for additional resources to be available.”

Two points to that:
(1) Companies are more or less forbidden to care if their staff are union or not anyway, so they are just following the law.  Indeed if you discriminate in any way between a union and non-union staff member (e.g. giving the union member less shifts than the non-union member, even though he’s a lazy bastard) you will be in Fair Work Australia so fast it will make your HR rep’s head spin, alleging discrimination against the union member.  To be fair, you’re not supposed to preference union members either in work.
(2) What you see as enthusiastic engagement of the union is not often motivated by a belief that unions actually make things any better for the employer.  It is more a case of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.  You cannot keep the union out, and they can (as the QANTAS dispute illustrated) cause immense damage to your business and productivity with only the threat of a strike, so you might as well kiss up to them since it’s easier to convince a friend to eat a shit sandwich than it is an enemy.

” Unions are not the issue, it is all about the line, are you responsible for your actions or do you seek to blame others for your inaction?”

Given the number of unfair dismissal claims, of which 10% go to trial and of that number about 1 in 3 find the employee was unfairly dismissed, the suggestion is firmly that the employee is not responsible for their own actions.

“Unions only ever exist where there is a need for them, people dont join unions because they feel safe and secure in their jobs.”

Unions might form because there’s a need for them. They don’t continue because there’s a need for them.  They continue to exist largely because the union recruiting model is to whip up unjustified paranoia about your safe and secure job, and present the union as the guardian of your rights and a strong whip hand if the company tells you to do something you don’t like.  It’s a tremendously effective model, particularly in low-paying industries where the membership is neither terribly bright nor doing particularly skilled work.