It is interesting that Andrew says that economic growth has not led to a reduction in long-term unemployment. The ABS data show that the number people unemployed for more than a year fell to 97,600 in July 2005, its lowest level since August 1981. This compares to a peak of 365,300 in March 1993, and an average of about 240,000 during the 1990s.

I'd guess that some of the difference between the ABS data and Andrew's figure of 340,000 long-term unemployed is the difference in sources and definitions of long-term unemployed (I think he's quoting benefit recipients, who may not meet the ABS definition of unemployed). But the gap between the two is very large.

I do not doubt that poverty and long-term unemployment persist, and more should be done to address them, but maybe there is more improvement out there than ACOSS is willing to admit.

It is interesting to see where the absurdity of the ACOSS definition of poverty leads you. If I only have one 4WD vehicle, and everyone else has five, I am in poverty. Using this logic the only time we had real equality in Australia was during the governorship of Captain Arthur Philip, when the food ration was the same from the Governor down to the lowest convict (and of course everyone was starving). It is not surprising that relative poverty is the favoured measure, because since it is unattainable ACOSS and others can be confident they will never work themselves out of a job. The only practical, effective, realisable measure of poverty is an absolute one, defining standards of food, clothing etc. that people should have. I am sure that people in genuine poverty in Africa would dearly love to be raised to the standard of the alleged poor in Australia. When considering the claims of any lobby group you should always remember the slogan "We must make demands that cannot be satisfied".

There is a bit of bait and switch in this article.

QUOTE:-

"
This means poverty is a relative term defined by a society to describe the people who cannot participate in the activities that most people take for granted. Some of the experiences of people living in poverty, such as juggling payments of bills, are widely shared by others in the community. Other aspects of their lives are almost unimaginable to most of us: such as the experience of seeking food parcels from emergency relief agencies or living on the streets.

Using the number of jobless people, who are frequently reliant on social security payments, ACOSS estimates around two million people are living in poverty in Australia.
"

RESPONSE:-

By one definition people in poverty may experience a lack of food. By a completely different and unconnected definition of poverty some people frequently rely on social security.

This article represents more disconnected logic from the welfare industry. I can not see why ACOSS deserves one penny of taxpayer funding. It is such a self serving entity

Terje,you're being a bit harsh.ACOSS need the money so they can expand their empires.We need more people dependant upon Govt so they have a pool of captive voters to shore up their power bases.

The secret is to dangle the carrot of expectation in front of those who work for private enterprise and snatch it away with bracket creep.Then get the state Govts to shaft us as well.Gee ,don't you love it?They look upon it as their right.

Now shut up bend over and take your medicine ,you ungreatful capitalist