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

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

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.

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.

The greens are very generous with other people's money, and very strident against anyone that tries to make any for themselves.

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.