Successive governments of either Tweedle persuasion are always either talking about or applying crackdowns on welfare bludgers.

How strange that they never address the welfare for big business and the wealthy that is built into our current system.Inequity between the rich and the poor is becoming more pronounced.

We shall reap what we sow.

Manorina,

What the Right fail to understand is that the poorer people of Australia may (or may not) be 'richer' than in the past, but they perceive themselves as poorer because they compare themselves to other more affluent people in society.

I agree above. Elites like Abbott, Gillard, David Penberthy etc all ignore or omit mention of corporate and middle class welfare. Also the peppercorn rents paid by alpine resorts for crown land encourage them to have too much sense of entitlement to demand working visa rules be relaxed because they want to screw their local workforce and can't attract "good labor".

Welfare policy does not want to make it easier for the poor to get tertiary qualfication. Thats why, though its wrong, that a young full time tertiary student cannot get an independent rate of allowance as of right, it depends on all kinds of complex and labyrinthine criteria.

As a veteran of the welfare system, its not designed to really lift us up at all, make educated to our full potential (would like a tertiary qualification perhaps) and address discrimination across the board (society would not accept me for a long time even in semi-skilled jobs and intermediate-advanced administrative occupations.

The system is designed by elites, for elites and business, to corral the leftovers, the misfits etc, however bright, dumb or in between, into the jobs that all you don't want your kids doing, so that even mediocre rich youth can have the inside run to the top. Thats also aided by not allowing, as of ENTITLEMENT, for any tertiary student of any age to get an independent rate of allowance, and also a full book subsidy (or put the cost of books on HECS).

People with disability might be able to move about doe short times. The problem is when forced to work, it increases the pain level and they are unable to live a normal life outside work. Most people believe it or not will choose to work if able to. THere are also people without any physical disability, who are not suitable for work and are a danger to themselves and those around them. I know this because I was married to one.

I don’t think anyone should worry about threats to crack down on welfare ‘bludgers’. All politicians vow to act against people who should not be on welfare at some stage in their politicking, but none seem able or willing to do anything when they have the chance.

While there are many genuine people needing and receiving welfare and there will always be such people, there are also too many living off taxpayers who should not be doing so. So, of course there should have been a crackdown on the latter - a long time ago.

Only the very naïve and apologists for bludgers would not agree that there should be a crackdown on welfare cheats. If, as Abbott claims, there are at least a third of disability pension recipients who should not be receiving benefits, then Abbott should be doing something about it: even in opposition it is his duty to do something about it on behalf of taxpayers and honest pensioners.

Even the “…previous Coalition rhetoric on welfare recipients…’ was just that – rhetoric. Howard talked tough, but did nothing.

The arguments about ‘conservative only’ concern about are hogwash. Any person, politician or citizen, who professes concern for the mental well-being of people whittling their lives away receiving welfare they shouldn’t have is a liar without the guts to tell it the way it is. Being paid to do nothing when you could be working is fraud, pure and simple. Those involved should be dealt with by the law.

It’s just a pity that Abbott’s professed concern about welfare fraud is more rhetoric, and the situation will continue the way it is

So Leigh.... what about Corporate Welfare?

dealing with Centrelink is something only a masochist with a hide as thick as a rhino would endure. It's hard to deal with a bureaucracy that's so lacking in empathy and compassion and if people on disability benefits have mental problems and are not believed, it becomes a real exercise in frustration, and maybe even dangerous to boot.

This need not be the case, if we outsourced this whole area to certain groups who have a proven track record of getting the job done whilst maintaining peoples' dignity at the same time. They're out there somewhere, but maybe are better off being volunteers than getting enmeshed and embedded with govt bureaucracy. Like Meals on Wheels for instance. Or D.O.M.E, a wonderful mob!

Savvas,

You tell me. You have not described what you call corporate 'welfare'.

I suspect that what you think corporate welfare is 'dreadful rich people' getting handouts from the 'poor'. This is an old refrain which is never really explained, only claimed.

I asked you because you decided to ignore the other comments.

Corporate Welfare? I have no idea.

But I do know that if we continue to offer 'choice' (Choice of schools, especially!!) then we will have an underclass that has no hope for its future. And the social costs will be calamitous.

We are slowly heading there.

I would like to believe that the majority of unemployed would like to be productive members of society, and mostly they require a helping hand to get back into the market.

Most employers are reluctant to hire someone without references, and a disability can pose a financial risk with regards future medical claims.

If the government were serious about getting these people to work, it would try and make it attractive to the potential employers. This can be done by:

- providing assistance to the employer to accomodate the particular handicap,
- Reducing the employment tax,
- Providing an extended risk free assessment period (say 12 months)
- providing liability cover for the 12 months.

This will enable those who want to to get their foot in the employment door, and whilst the expense to the state may be no less, there at least is the prospect of p.a.y.e and the individuals self respect.

Trying to root out bludgers is demeaning to those who want to work, providing work for the disabled will expose the bludgers without the interrogations.

This talk about people being paid for doing nothing is hogwash, try living on Newstart (a euphemism for unemployment benefits) and you will soon discover that grinding poverty is no fun at all and is not a viable "life-style choice". Having subsisted on the generosity of the government for five years, four as a student, the past year as a dole-bludger, I am now, at 50, poorer than I have ever been. I guess I was stupid by trying career change, abandoning a good? job with the ATO in order to become an academic, now stymied because I missed out on a PhD scholarship.
As it is, being on the dole is a form of house arrest, one is required to attend Centrelink each fortnight, which is no too bad, but the real killer is the Job Services Australia system where barely qualified so-called employment consultants can, on a whim, drag one in to their office for fruitless interviews, useless training sessions where one is advised to flush the work-place toilet after use and to 'put your name and address on your job applications', and where one has to endure the company of foul-mouthed teenage high school drop outs barely able to write their own names let alone a job application when one's own teenage son is made to rewrite English assignemts because they are too literary for the teacher to understand.
The house arrest aspect has a lot to do with the obligations to attend JSA appointments, but, as in my case, the poverty has meant I have been unable to afford to visit my ageing and ailing parents who live interstate. A common situation I imagine, and highlights the callousness of the unemployment industry and the hypocrisy of Howard and his ALP clone KRudd, who purport to hold the family sacrosanct but devise policies to tear those same families apart.

I agree that corporate welfare is the problem.
It is not only unethical but also distorts the market. The corporate bludgers effectively prevent efficient business models from competing, which has a *much* bigger impact than a few individuals not working.
Great examples now is the energy industry: Built by the public, it is now exploited for private profits. The attitude is "even if we aren't viable, the taxpayer should pay to keep us viable for jobs sake". Meanwhile they deny the investment needed to establish viable industries and lobby governments to set laws to deny the competition, just in case an entrepreneur tries to do it.
Fact is, we need less workers to produce the wealth for a nation than we used to. Instead of continuing with a progressive society, we have allowed the "conservatives"* to lead us down the US path: High corporate profits, more poverty, stressed middle class. In short, the flow of wealth has been channelled out of wages and into the corporations, who can avoid tax and lobby government from strength.
Abbot's "compassionate truthiness" game is pure politics.

*"Conservatives" are anything but conservative. It's a bit like Fox News slogan "Fair and un-biassed"...a total lie. Only really dumb evil wears a black hat. The good ones do a Mafia and cloak themselves in virtue by donating 1% of their income to children, or help the elderly, etc. Liberals can afford to pay women as the industry bribes will pay and they can do a Howard and blame the next Labour government when things overcook. (Like our current debt pre-crisis).

Corporate welfare takes may forms, one example is the company tax rate which during my time with the ATO fell from 49% to 30%, another is the top marginal personal tax rate which has fallen from 60% in 85/86 to its current rate of 45% from 2006/07. Then we can look at the US where trillions have been given to the banks and other bloated corporations because they were 'too big to fail'. To get some idea of examples of corporate welfare in Australia go to http://www.civilsociety.org.au/CorporateWelfare.htm

When is corporate welfare wrong?

Where a corporation uses its knowledge to take advantage of loopholes in the law to gain a benefit against the spirit of the legislation. Or where an organisation is gifted taxpayer funds as a result of some dubious reasoning or anachronism.

An example of the first - albeit a small one - was when I was living in Perth. The rumour was going round that Alan Bond's daughter was getting a TEAS (Tertiary Education Assistant Scheme) payment. If true, it was outright fraud. Knowing Bond and the way WA worked at that time, it was probably true.

An example of the second is the way Churches are given charity status. If people do not get assisted by the Church, they have every right to ask why it is their tax revenues are going towards propping it up. Another is the way Governments bribe companies to stay in Australia so that they don't get a backlash at the ballot box because people lose their jobs.

"...very naïve and apologists for bludgers would not agree that there should be a crackdown on welfare cheats".

i think there should be a crackdown on far right wing ideologues like leigh who continually pretend to be reasonable human beings went in fact they are anything but. if you "crackdown on welfare cheats" you'd probably unearth two or three in every town..the right wing fantasy trumpeted by the media that people are just languishing on the dole is completely and totally insane..and has been shown to be so in study after study after study..but hey..the people who do the studies are all part of the communist post-modern pc latte sipping chardonnay swilling elite who seek to undermine core australian values... ;-)

Corporate welfare is dished out by both sides of government including subsidies to manufacturers (like Toyota) and other industries to support jobs in Australia. Someone else already mentioned tax breaks to industry.

Compensation payments have also been handed out to industry when suffering the ill-effects of changes to government policy.

Climate change or ETS policy was proposing compensation to certain industry and agric. sectors. Even if the ETS is flawed thinking, why introduce it if the major players are exempt?

Many State Governments have also offered free rents to companies to keep and attract them to their regions.

Sporting bodies also receive money from governments to fund upgrades to stadiums and funding of various football codes.

Why single out those who cannot work for various reasons when millions more are paid from the public purse to private interests.

Sometimes there may be legitimate reasons for public money to be used to boost the private sector, but too often it is government's playing into vested interests.

I think focusing on corporate welfare is a distraction. The more important point is that the welfare system allows some people to live supported lives whilst the rest of us work to support them. It takes the concept of social obligation too far when these people are on welfare for long periods of time.

I have no problem with disability benefits. I'm not a fan of middle class welfare through family payments and tax breaks but I can see the reason for it. But unemployment benefits should be transitory and they should never be a permanent entitlement. Ideally, they should be capped to six months or twelve months. But that is it. There should be limits on the number of times you can claim these benefits in any period as well - ie employed one year, unemployed 6 months, employed 3 months, unemployed 6 months etc - these types of situations should lead to a strict capping of benefits.

Similarly, anybody receiving public housing should have less entitlement to other forms of welfare. You should have to earn your place in our society.

If not cheaters, people on welfare are those who can not get income or those with the issues that make them not able get or maintain job. It does not seem alright that person prefer to stay on welfare then to work. One can not really wish to stay below poverty line – that would not meet criteria for mentally healthy individual. I wish to think they have physiological or mental issues if choose to stay on welfare as oppose to be proud for own contribution doing any kind of work.
And why the fact of not contributing to the society by avoiding paying or unlawfully minimising for thousands and thousands dollars in taxes is more acceptable in the society then someone who has physiological issues would be taking from the society few dollars a week? That would be a shame to see our citizens dieing and living on the streets in larger numbers. As civilised society we have to accept the outlay

"I asked you because you decided to ignore the other comments.

Corporate Welfare? I have no idea.

But I do know that if we continue to offer 'choice' (Choice of schools, especially!!) then we will have an underclass that has no hope for its future. And the social costs will be calamitous.

We are slowly heading there.
Posted by Savvas Tzionis, Friday, 12 March 2010 11:04:14 AM"

What “other comments” did I ignore? Sarah Burnside did not comment on so-called corporate welfare. The comments on corporate welfare were made by other posters; and I do not comment on the opinions of other posters unless they address a reasonable question to me as you did. The theme of the article was welfare payments as they pertain to ordinary people. Irrespective of what I think about ‘corporate welfare’ (if what you means is really welfare per se), I expressed my beliefs on the subject offered for discussion by Sarah Burnside – i.e. welfare as in disability pensions etc.

You say that you have “no idea” about corporate welfare, so I still don’t know what you want from me.

Also, I have no idea what you mean when you state:- “But I do know that if we continue to offer 'choice' (Choice of schools, especially!!) then we will have an underclass that has no hope for its future. And the social costs will be calamitous.”

I cannot see what ‘choice’ of education or anything else has to do with welfare.

If somebody wants to write an article about what they perceive as welfare for corporations, then I would probably comment on what they said. In the meantime, what I think or do not think about the idea of corporate welfare has nothing at all to do with the subject in hand – disability welfare

We already prosecute a few people for tax evasion. We have prosecuted others for welfare fraud.

We could alleviate our need to prosecute some of these people if we withdrew the benefits. We don't owe them a living. I just don't see why we are an atm for some people just because they think we have to look after them. Welfare should depend on reciprocity and mutual obligation. Not the tax-payers give and the slackers take.

Some of these people may have mental health problems. But they have to manage their conditions. If they fail to do that we shouldn't be forced to give and give. Some of their problems are also not necessarily chronic problems.

Are you people all that naive, or are you so fixed in your lefty ideology, that you just won't see.

In my district the local farmers have a list of cash in hand, [only want one or two days mate] "workers". They use them, because no one ever applies for their jobs. Most of them are real work, & not too popular.

We have 2 turf farms, a dairy, 2 chicken farms, a couple of row crop farmers, a couple of lucern farms, & quite a few studs, all looking for full time workers. Most of them even accept that the term "workers" may mean different things to different people.

The best they can get is 2 days, but it's mostly only one day's work out of these people.

Why would they work 5 days for $6oo or $7oo, when 2 days at $150 in hand a day, & the dole, all of it tax free is as much, or more take home.

They all hate having to virtually beg these blokes to put in a day, & more than a few are scared of being "done" for the illegal cash in hand payments required, but don't have much choice.

Believe me, full strength dole bludging is alive & well, as is the old "Mediterranean back".

I'm dumbfounded by the nodding nincompoops who can't imagine human life outside their (s)hallowed work ethic--the quotidian drudges of body and mind. What about those "welfare bludgers" (the Diogenes's of the world) who see through the pathetic bickering and tiny-mindedness of the Today Tonight mindest (like polished glass)--well represented here! Apart from these very few savants, the rest of the rotting rorting welfare crew are a salubrious reminder of what reeks about the whole stinking system. How many people are drawing real satisfaction from their careers? And I'm not talking about self-congratulation, counting their money, or schadenfreude!
Milk the system for all its worth, I say. Maybe that will bring it down.

One point some people here seem to forget.......Where the hell are all the jobs going to come from for these "bludgers" to step into? Hard enough to get a job at all without the stigma of attempting to come off welfare!

And yes, I do believe the welfare system is badly flawed. I know of people first hand on permanent disability support who use it to play the pokies or sit around and drink all day. Sometimes it makes me a little mad as I watch my taxes go down the toilet or into the pockets of the corporations who own the pokie machines. I also know a totally blind person who has a permanent full time position and who earns just over $100,000 a year PLUS gets the 'blind pension' without any questions asked on top of it. This person is earning more than four times my annual income and I'm still paying part of their pension and I can't even get a lousy low income health care card. Earn a few dollars (literally) every eight weeks to qualify.

So yes, the welfare system frustrates me too and yet having endured Centerlinks unemployment system for two years ten years ago, I really feel for the genuine people like John DG who are humiliated by this overbearing Government culture. No such thing as compassion at CenterSTINK and forget dignity. One of the first things I was asked to do when applying for the dole was to empty my purse right there on the desk so they could see how much money I had. They'd already scrutinised my bank account, the value of my car and the contents of my home. If anyone else in any other business asked that, you could have them charged!

Hasbeen many people already feel dreadful and guilty prior to claiming centrelink payments given past media and social comments by fellow Australians.

Most people are aware that at the end of contracts and casual work there is a 'positive' for them to receive in addition to the low wages. A Reference or Referee for their next contract or casual position [labour or administration possie].

If people here were honest about their own lives as JohnDG has been; they would realise that somewhere sometime during their lives, government and the tax they have already paid is claimed at some point by themselves and/or they are assisted.

Either through long term work bludging on occasions [and I see it from place to place] on high wages. How wonderful to be 'chatting most of the day in offices in between getting the work done on quiet days' being paid thousands per day. Every person at some point is guilty.

Be wary of those condemning others not working or temporarily seeking asistance for tax those people have in all probability paid for 20-30 years honestly and worked honestly.

The Mad Monk ( the nickname fits his Conquistador monk like zealotry to conquest and power) and ilk's political dogma is designed to reinforce popularism as a means of garnering electoral support, rather than actually address the hard issues (lowest common denominator)
Hasbeen's entrenched, stereotypical prejudicial rant is a good example of this attitude. Note- the choice of the ethnically insulting stereotypical term, 'Mediterranean back' rather than 'dodgy back'. Yet historically Mediterraneans were noted for their dogged hard work.

Then there's his focus on a *minority* of unemployed . One can reasonably ask how do they know if the applicant is unemployed or on DSB? The latter, by the way is the context of the article.
Sadly this is not the only less than rational POV in this topic .
How does this attitude stand up to examination?
yes, there are cheats on SS as in business.
So it's okay for farmers to break the law when it benefits them but not for the unemployed. Blatant hypocrisy!
Clearly one would need to live local.
imagine the employers response to "excuse me boss I need tomorrow off to apply for a job I'm better qualified for or offers me a better long term future"
Try and pay or get mortgage with only a background of menial work.
Would they hire a legal employee with limitations, a history of industrial injuries, or say over qualified older person

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
Forcing careers smacks of central planned dictatorship the days or rural/industrial serfdom are gone.

Then there's the infrastructure Government funded employment agencies etc? .

Sorry Ms. Rudd/Russo your organisation's services are IMO poorly producing, government fed (parasitic).

ESykes' underlying principal bothers me , however I concede his point that very few people have jobs that they see as the meaning of their lives ( would do for free). I work to live not the other way around.
If industries can't get employees perhaps it's the nature of the job in a capitalist supply and demand environment. Not entirely that of the employe

Abbott has the nerve to talk about people on government benefits!! Who was it that created the most middle class welfare recipients in history?

Who was it that decided paying for child care was a good idea for taxpayer's money?

Yet he spotlights those with disabilities of whom he "knowa" 1/3 are fakes or able to work.

Sure, there are fakes. Just look behind you in Parliament Tony, none of them are doing a damned thing and get paid very well, plus, plus. How long did Costelloe sit there writing CV's?

Look opposite behind Rudd and see the same, many unemployed politicians with staff, cars, offices, benefits, employed relatives and all for doing what? Nothing.

Tell me Tony where will you find 200,000 plus jobs for people who are disabled? Hmm? Grape pickers?

I was in the public service in the 70's when they did this stuff. They sent us a young guy, thalidomide victim, short legs, gnarled hands. They put him onto filing in a 6 foot high storage unit. That's how much sense this rubbish makes.

You created the problem Tony, you and Johnny. Now try and take it back, go on.

David J: <"The more important point is that the welfare system allows some people to live supported lives whilst the rest of us work to support them.">

Well since it's so easy to obtain welfare, and people on welfare live an easy life that's the envy of all of us hard working, tax paying employees - why don't more working people opt to do the same?

I don't think it's because we're so socially conscious and responsible - but because we KNOW that none of us could live well enough on about 240.00 a week. Just do the sums. If even a crappy, rat infested hovel in a dodgy neighbourhood costs 100.00 a week; or public housing (25% of income) costs 60.00 - that leaves the recipient between 140 to 180 dollars weekly for food, electricity, transport, maybe a phone and any medication (even on the PBS each script is about 5.00) etc. Plus there is the loss of dignity of grovelling to Centrelink staff for the conditional pittance and humiliation EVERY time someone asks or a form requires a statement about source of income, and impositions on one's time and minimal resources to attend mandatory appointments to remain qualified.

So who CHOOSES that?

Very few people who can avoid it.

As for stopping it at 6 months etc. Sure if we want a bigger subclass of street dwellers and squatters - just as in the US.

The idea that we can't afford a bigger or more generous welfare system, and the notion that lots of cheats are milking the system - are the diversions that keep us from questioning greedy corporations, stock holders and multinational biz.

RobbyH,
totally agree, the whole of the Public Service is a hole into which taxpayers' money disappears at a disgusting rate.

Abbott’s opinion 30% of welfare recipients are not entitled to them.
Accuracy of the figures. How did he obtain those figures? Politicians are masters at poetic licence and would find it is easy to pluck figures from the air to justify their statements.
It would require an investigation of every welfare recipient. Centre Link rapidly suspends payments where it believes a person is not entitled to benefits, even when presented with medical evidence.
Discriminatory Decisions. As a result, sometimes families can be left struggling to make ends meet while they appeal the decisions. Not have money to pay rent, power, gas, etc. Or to buy food during the appeal time means they have to go to charity for help. Again the children are the victims.
Investigate first before suspension. It would be more just to investigate a doubt before stopping or suspending payments.
Only a fool would believe the system is foolproof and there is no doubt some slip through.
However, I believe this to be only a small number and more than offset by those who are entitled and fail for whatever reason to receive the benefits.
As a volunteer community advocate I come across so many of these cases. I have come across examples where families have had added costs where their payments are made into an account then distributed via direct debit or other and failing to meet the time they are faced with dishonour fees and other charges. Even when a Centre link payment is late for some reason this can happen.
Find those not entitled and then you can quote accurate figures.
Society and Scapegoats or using the vulnerable to create misdirection. It is easy to pick on societies most vulnerable with allegations of abusing or rorting the system. They are the least likely to be able to fight back. As a result families, particularly children become victims. E.g. The anomaly requiring both parents on welfare to register for work when the youngest child reaches six year old.
Government do not value children from low income families enough to ensure their protection and supervision.

continued

Not an issue if one parent in a two parent family is required to register; in the sole parent situation, male or female, there are problems.

This requirement does not apply to those on high income. At least one parent can choose to remain at home and look after their children.

The value is under-estimated of the contribution of Sole parents or other parents remaining at home with volunteer work at the schools, e.g. making costumes, sewing, cooking for stalls, gardening. Some build projects to benefit the school and the children, etc.
Acting as supervisors when required. This sometimes includes more than one school. Governments do not appear to value this contribution.
With the loss of these volunteers the education system loses a valuable asset and all children suffer as a result. Schools may not be able to provide the extras that benefit the children.
Part-time and Fulltime work difficulties. Part time work, matched to school hours is limited and parents compete to obtain work that allows them to pick up their children after school. In some areas it is dangerous for children to walk home alone.
Parents, working fulltime, often leave home in the early hours, not returning until late at night.
Many schools do not provide or, have the resources to provide after hours care. This results in children left unsupervised until their return. This also includes children having to get themselves ready for school in the morning.
The government forces these parents to break the law as it is illegal to leave children up to 16) unsupervised. Even when there are child minding centres available they are costly, especially where more than one child is involved.

The there is the other side of the coin. the wealthy seeking tax breaks and employing special accountants to ensure they pay little or no tax, e.g. Australia's one time richest man, Packer boasting he did not have any personl taxable income.
The special grants to try and keep companies in Australia when their ultimate aim is to leave after picking up a nice profit from the taxpayer and so on.

The World's Capitalist economy has collapsed due to human immorality in the USA. The world is now in a Giant state of FLUX. (continuous change, passage, or movement: "His political views are in a state of flux)."
Europe and China are pushing for new Monetary rules.
GDP is a failed policy.
Unemployment is here to stay. States will have to develop a "ROTATION" system where the employed must exchange places with the Unemployed for periods of time to allow for financial survival. The unemployed if they refuse "three job exchanges" will forfeit benefits.

The previous Howard government was notorious for wedge politics. This is just more of the same from one of the old war horses of that government.

Tony Abbott is doing his level best to ensure that the voters who deserted the Liberal Party last election will do the same again and soon.

Meanwhile, another old war horse of the Howard days, (Honest) Joe Hockey is claiming to be all for classical liberalism and has taken to quoting John Stuart Mill.

http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1459:in-defence-of-liberty-joe-hockey-speech-to-grattan-institute&catid=101:australian-news&Itemid=167

Both Abbott and Hockey should be members of Actors' Equity.

Why they lost government is a total mystery to these old war horses who should have been put out to graze (off our taxes of course) long ago.