The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Greens and social welfare > Comments

The Greens and social welfare : Comments

By Philip Mendes, published 8/10/2012

The Greens social welfare policy is a move towards a more liberal and localist model.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
While in many cases unemployed people want or need certain Centrelink supervision, in the case of an individual choosing to do community work for an organisation that has itself already been approved, three current restrictions are inappropriate and unnecessary.
i) community work is only allowed if it can be shown that it is likely to lead to paid employment or if the individual can satisfy the case manager that it will improve their employability;
ii) approval is only given for a limited time.
iii) those wanting to do community work for an approved organisation must have a third party (either Centrelink or its agent) to individually approve and “case manage” their activity;

These restrictions are inappropriate because -
• the incentive of a higher income will, by itself, see most people back into employment as soon as they can get it;
• the current restrictions discount the value of continued community work, and a person’s autonomy and self-motivation are discouraged.
• even if employment is not on the horizon, continuing with community work will still mean unemployment being a more productive experience, particularly for those people having trouble finding work in today’s highly competitive labour market;
• developing new skills and staying active in the workplace increases employment potential;
• the fact that someone has chosen to do 32 hours of community work in a fortnight should be evidence enough that they are strongly motivated and keen to participate;

Community work should be a standard option on the fortnightly claim form. The random phone check, which Centrelink now uses in an attempt to verify job applications to employers, would verify with certainty claims of community work with organizations. There is no need for Centrelink involvement in arrangements between the volunteer and the organisation.

If a person who had chosen community work decided not to continue, they would simply tick a different box on the form to indicate some other approved activity, such as study or job search.

This simple change would also help create abundant sustainable work (see bit.ly/ABqCbx)

@landrights4al
Posted by landrights4all, Monday, 8 October 2012 9:05:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To understand why the Centrelink restrictions (referred to in my post above) are inappropriate and unnecessary, it is helpful to see unemployed people in three groups.

The three groups are:

1. Those who will not quickly find employment, and will not choose community work.

Appropriate Centrelink intervention is needed for people in this group, but because they will not choose community work, any community work restrictions are irrelevant for them.

2. The majority, who are keen to find employment and do so within 3 months. From within this group, some may wish to do community work. They may see it as a pathway to the job and the income they want, or perhaps as a way of staying productive.

The three Centrelink restrictions are superfluous for this group because these people return to employment quickly through their own initiative.

3. Those who will not quickly find employment, but would choose to do community work.

Scrapping the current Centrelink restrictions would help create abundant sustainable work ( see bit.ly/ABqCbx ) - it could "integrate environmental and social equity concerns, recognize the value of social as well as economic participation, enhance the individual choice and agency of service users, and facilitate effective local responses to the social costs of climate change.

@landrights4al
Posted by landrights4all, Monday, 8 October 2012 9:32:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I didn't realise the Greens had any social welfare policies. I thought they just stole them from the poor old Democrats. Apart from the fact that their blocking of recent offshore processing legislation led to the deaths of about 70 people off the coast of Indonesia, the Greens are fundamentally an environmental party with some watermelon red influences just waiting to burst out.

Re social welfare, we outlay about $131 Billion in the last Budget on social welfare payments and programs at a time when we need more people to get in to work as labour productivity is falling. I'm not against welfare for the needy but traditionally, currently and in the future, this area is the domain of the ALP and small L Liberals, not the Greens.
Posted by Cheryl, Monday, 8 October 2012 9:43:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet the Greens support additional taxes which hit the poor the most. The Carbon Tax aimed at forcing people to use less energy hurts the poor who cannot afford to pay it. They also want to increase tax on business which will put more out of work.

I have a dangerous idea...Could the Greens actually come up with a scheme which actually generates money NOT simply spends it?? or maybe even be required to do an Economics 1 course.
Posted by Atman, Monday, 8 October 2012 1:46:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The greens are very generous with other people's money, and very strident against anyone that tries to make any for themselves.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 8 October 2012 1:49:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some green group seems to think all we need do to provide better welfare is to print more money?
Zimbabwe tried that approach and now a loaf of bread can cost around a million dollars?
A case might be made for higher welfare payments in return for scraping unfair dismissals. This might increase employment as would the dumping of payroll tax?
The greens need to understand where jobs actually come from and amend some of their more mindless policy paradigms to reflect a new found understanding?
Take carbon i.e, we import hydrocarbon products that produce four times the carbon of quite massive products likely locked up in a well known reef. We ask why can't we access these far less harmful products?
To which the answer is usually a resounding NO! It might harm the reef! What? Even those parts already dead?
Half the reef has succumbed in just the last three decades to cyclones, increased temps, and crown of thorns starfish? And the much mooted tourism and or tourists are staying away in droves, all while resorts are going broke or facing bankruptcy!
I suppose they can always put their hands out for some of the mooted green welfare?
Community service work?
Sure, but let's ensure that those volunteering actually turn up for work!
And that someone signs a stat dec, to indicate that work commitments were actually honoured; and or, welfare payments weren't simply hissed against a wall?
We have a huge almost intractable problem with feral weeds in national parks, roadsides and reserves etc.
The only way to remove some species, is to grub and burn.
For mine, the long term unemployed would work one month in two?
Camp out and rough it! Doing a dawn to dark gut-bust for ongoing or further payment?
And join the tax paying community and form good work habits!
Get into the open air, daylight and a much more healthy, less depressing lifestyle!
Build some very healthy self esteem!
It's likely we would very quickly fill the many jobs going begging in the west or away from the coastal cities?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 8 October 2012 3:23:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Greens are misanthropes at best; the rest is window dressing:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 8 October 2012 5:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah the good hearted greens, they want to increase the dole by some 20%, which of cause means increasing wages by 20%, otherwise the workers, esspecially low income, won't bother working.

The there is the increased wages that business and public sectors have to fund, in an already over inflated market.

Then of course, while doing this they want to reduce employment, by stopping logging, along with all the other industries this supports, they want to also stop mining, more jobs at risk.

In fact, if they had their way, only the best and brightest would have a decent paying job and all the rest of us would be on the dole.

Then of course tree are the illegals which they would like to welcome with open arms, and wallets (ours of cause).

Sounds too good to be true, just one small problem, how on earth do we pay for all this.

The only positive I see out of the greens having this power, is the fact that they have proven that given enough rope, they could hang themselves and they are doing a great job.

At least the next election will be predominantly between the two major parties, as both the greens and so called independents have shot themselves in to political foot.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 8 October 2012 7:54:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I support the Greens' pledge to remove welfare conditions.

EVERYONE should receive welfare, equally and without conditions!

The way to do it is called "negative income tax".

It's so simple: anyone whose income falls below a given threshold receives a fixed percentage (say 30%) of the difference between that threshold and their income, no questions asked. Those with income are taxed on their income above that threshold.

Negative income tax can be paid weekly/fortnightly for those in need - the rest get it through their annual tax returns.

This can be looked upon as if each and every person received a fixed welfare (say of 30% of the threshold), then pays tax (say also 30%) on each dollar of income (starting from $0).

It doesn't matter and nobody else's business whether one works or whether one seeks employment: your subsistence is assured, now if you want more - go work, it's up to you and away with this monstrous centerlink!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 8 October 2012 10:05:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too think we all should receive the same assistance, as opposed to the current system whereby we rob the rich to support the poor.

As to the amoumts mentioned, I'm not sure, as any form of a one off tax, like the GST or PAYG is outdated and will no longer collect enough taxes. This is why I feel we need to tax money, not workers, in the form of a transaction tax.

This would place billions more each year in people's wallets, something that would provide much needed stimulus, right where it's needed.

As for the dole, single parent, disability allowance (not the cronic cases) people seem to forget that these were designed as a hand up, not as an alternative to working, as one can simply manipulate the system, stay home and be as well off, if not better than many who work full time.

There are many out there who collect these benefits, then work a day or two for cash.

Quarantining welfare will go a long way towards stopping this, something else the greens oppose.

Now they are the truly wealthy ones. What a scam.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 9 October 2012 6:57:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu... that's brilliant!
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 9 October 2012 8:51:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Increase all incomes by 20%!? As has always happened, every general wage rise has been accompanied or preceded by price increases!
A general wage increase of 20%, would likely see a prices spike of around 30%, and then ditto/ditto/ditto.
The dog chasing its tail, inflationary price/wage spiral, has meant the home we used to be able to buy, with just 2.5 years of the average male wage, now claims around ten!
And remember, the average wage has been seriously padded out by CEO's /executive remuneration packages, which are included in the averaging calculations?
If we simply excluded salaries, and averaged just wages, the so called average, would be a lot lower and the years of average wages income needed to buy an average house, would be somewhere north of thirty.
We could eliminate some of the ever increasing disparity by simply raising the tax threshold, rather than simply giving tax breaks to the already better off, who would nonetheless receive some benefit.
However, I agree with others who advocate for quite massive and long overdue real reform and quite massive simplification of the tax act.
If all of the mind-numbing-complexity that is merely masquerading as a fair and equitable tax collection system, could be jettisoned in favour of a single stand alone expenditure or transactions tax, we could actually improve the average bottom line by around 7%, which is what it costs the average business as tax compliance costs.
Moreover, the complete jettisoning of the current raft of taxes, and replacing them with a single stand alone entirely unavoidable 4.8% expenditure tax, would end all avoidance, add in excess of one hundred billion per to internal revenue, the current cost of quite massive tax avoidance!?
And add around a further 30% to the averaged bottom line and 25% to household disposals, which is the current cost to us, of the current raft of quite easily avoided taxes.
But only if you are a real or sham religion, a very large and powerful company or international corporation.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 9 October 2012 12:40:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All this discussion is largely redundant.
What we have ahead is how to wind back our welfare payments while still
looking after the most disabled.

We need only look at Grece & Spain to see where we are going.
All economies are looking down the barrel of slowing growth and as in
Europe zero growth becoming contraction.

What on earth makes politicians think they can isolate Australia from
the "End of Growth" phenomena. It is a fundamental adjustment to the
increased cost and the pending reduction in the availability of cheap energy.
Our economy has to adapt to the "Steady State Economy" model.

Remember this, extra spending plus repaying borrowings, plus paying interest
can only come out of increasing growth rates.
However increasing growth rates are so 20th century.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 15 October 2012 10:49:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy