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).