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.