For the life of me, I can't understand why able-bodied people of roughly normal intelligence who are unemployed shouldn't be required to either study for specific occupations, or take the first job which comes up, fruit-picking, highway rubbish collecting, whatever - preferably the study path, to get into TAFE or Workskills or other study ASAP after they become unemployed, and train for jobs which are or soon will be in demand.

Of course, I'm not suggesting compulsory education or low-grade work -only if they want to be paid out of taxpayers' contributions. If they don't want any of that, of course they should be as free as the birds or the lilies of the valley to look after themselves.

John,

Another fine piece. Pity many here who have commented have not read it or if they have, don't appear to have the basic historical or policy knowledge to understand it.

They espouse to believe in equality for all but refuse to recognise the inequality of the existing welfare system.

I know it shouldn’t surprise me that there are people out there who still believe in socialism/communism. Yet you would think that the obvious and demonstrable failure of socialism as a motivating principle for a society had made some impression on the left. Humans have a keen and inbuilt sense of fairness. The failure of socialist society to reward those who work hard and succeed leads directly to the enervation of that society. We don’t need more welfare. We need less welfare. The very idea of untargeted welfare is to redistribute wealth to those who have done nothing to earn it.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in quality public education and health care as a way to ensure that everyone gets a fair start in life. But the idea of ensuring equality of outcome is dangerous and self-defeating. If you are assured your salary no matter how hard you work what likelihood is there that you are going to work hard? Some of the poorest and most deprived countries on the planet are ex socialist paradises. Societies which were organised by command economies for the most part couldn’t even feed themselves.

Providing income indefinitely for anyone is not only unfair and a waste of money it’s undoubtedly bad for the recipient in the long term. The passive welfare given to aborigines has been at the root of their suffering. I’m not wild about work for the dole but I agree it’s a damn sight better than the do-nothing alternative.

Diverdan >” Your non-condescending comments can best be described in the Euphemism “downward envy”. And in that attitude lies the whole problem to a sensible solution of the huge disjointed complexity; the current welfare system.

Whatever that means, the reason for the huge disjointed complexity in welfare is that there is far too much of it. Middle class families earning well above average wages are still pocketing gov’t handouts. The focus has moved too far from the original intent of workmans insurance which was to help out workers during times of downturn. It was never meant to be a lifestyle

John is right. There does need to be a better way to ensure an equal footing for all Australians. A comment was passed regarding those on welfare identifying three categories - transients on their way through to work,drug addicts, and those who like being on welfare. Forgotten in that comment are those whom Government finds it economically sound to keep dependent on welfare payments. I refer to unpaid family carers of people with a disability or frail aged. You see it would cost ten times more than the paltry Carers Payment to replace the work they do and properly support those for whom they provide care and support. This cohort actually saves the Australian economy in excess of $36billion annually thus governments can give the poor oppressed taxpayers $30billion tax cuts. This group of Australian citizens don't make it on to unemployment figures as they are on pensions. Are you aware that carers on a carer payment can only work or study 25 hours/week including travelling time and that due to the very nature of their role this means they are expected to work 143 hours per week. A Fair days pay for a fair days work, How much do you think we are worth now?

scorpio, I was referring to thoise who are offically unemployed. I don't think full time carers are included in this.

You seem to have taken this a little personally I might also add.

Finally, there are many people who do unpaid work in society, including parents, volunteers and others.

A fine article. Our current 'welfare system' needs a bomb underneath it. Sooner rather than later. It is unbelievably archaic.

Those with silly comments in the cliche ridden 'dole bludger' style have not the faintest idea what they are talking about. Obviously have no direct experience of Australia's 'welfare system'. Just mouthing off so that others are left in no doubt that of course they or theirs would never ever be in a situation of debilitating financial hardship.

You are all physically indestructible with indestructible partners all holding secure employment or successful businesses impervious to factors beyond your control.

The money spent on copious, and I mean copious, forms, letters, duplications and more letters with the left hand patently not knowing what the right hand is doing is farcical. A disgraceful waste of money and of no benefit whatsoever to anybody. Not the taxpayers and certainly not the recipients who have negotiated their way through this degrading maze to get a payment that is woefully inadequate.

Just by doing away with 50% of paperwork, which is mainly duplication and through inefficiency would save a veritable forest.

As a taxpayer I'm incensed at my tax dollars wasted on maintaining this archaic, inefficient, degrading poverty inducing system. It creates and maintains poverty.

Don't worry too much about the recipients, worry about how this service is delivered and how employment agencies are milking taxpayers dollars. Notice how their buildings are getting fancier and fancier?