I wish some of the know-it-alls making comments on here could explain how newstart recipients are ripping of the system and thus forcing the government to moan n' groan about how evil welfare recipients are?

A little research will enlighten them that regular evidence of job seeking efforts must be presented to the recipients nominated employment agency otherwise benefits will be cut.

Also, lets not forget the plethora of identification protocols and procedures one must go through in order to lawfully claim benefits at all, thus minimising fraudulent claims in the first place.

Or is this just another flame feast of dogmatic comments lobbying newstart recipients as "dole bludgers" AGAIN!

I heartily agree with the author - a majority of politicians in Australia deserve to viewed as sadly lacking in a number of areas including being overpaid for what they actually contribute to the social fabric of Australia by largely self-interested agendas. The sooner pig trough perks are dried up the earlier the 'average' elector may slowly have some small measure of respect for them as a class.
The old adage reminds us 'Whoever you vote for you will get a politician!' This in itself reflects that what should be the highest ethical office in the nation has become sullied to be synonymous with the less trustworthy occupations of societies. A person's word should be their bond - it would be a miracle if politicians were made fully accountable by them voting for complementary changes in legislation to enforce this.

When it comes to welfare, we need a thorough investigation of the privatised human resources firms who are contracted to supposedly police the welfare system. A friend of mine, who works in the privatised welfare industry, writes about three reports per week to assess the employability of welfare recipients. She receives $1200 per report, for about one hour's work each.

My son, who went on Newstart allowance after finishing his degree, attended such a session. After filling in a form and attending a compulsory interview, he was advised on how to complete a CV (which he knew already) and that he had a high employability rating (which he knew already). When he asked if she could help him to contact prospective employers in his field, he was told that this was not her job.

So what was the point of the interview? Nothing, other than to fill her quota and receive her privatised funding for interviewing welfare recipients.

Isn't it time for the public to know what the national welfare budget is really being spent on? I've tried repeatedly to find this out, but the annual $120 billion welfare budget figures never provide this breakdown. I wonder why.