Welfare is not an alternative life-style. Your ex-wife clearly had no personal experience. It is a poverty trap par excellence. To my mind not at all an assistance to help anybody through a situation.

Some 2 years ago my husband had a serious accident. I could tell you, a tax payer, stories that would make your hair curl.

If if I tell you the left hand does not know what the right is doing, that is a polite euphemism for a totally shambolic set up.

We've been tax payers for 25+ years. I'm appalled at the system we have here. Paternalism is a very polite word.

It has been shown overseas, like in Sweden, that more than six weeks out of work is very detrimental. The system we have here favours keeping people dependent for one year or more. Employment agencies get more money for placing a long term unemployed person than a recently unemployed person. How crazy is that? It's a gravy train for private 'unemployment agencies', an industry funded with tax payers money.

Anybody who wants to upskill or retrain should be vigorously encouraged, not told they'll need to be unemployed for a year or jump through some other hoops first. Or worse still, explained how much worse financially they'll be. True, true story. You are financially even worse off if you elect to go on Austudy, rather than unemployment, or invalid pension benefits. Even if there is no possibility of you obtaining work in your previous capacity.

We are doing fine now, though starting 'from scratch'. It takes a tough hide though and limitless self-confidence. Maybe I should sell T-shirts: "I was a 'client' with Centrelink and survived to tell the tale!"

Yvonne,

There are plenty of us who have had dealings with centrelink. When I first left school my mates and I bludged off the dole, doing all sorts of things we shouldn’t. I really don’t think society was doing me any favours picking up the tab for my indolent and occasionally anti-social activities. And we were by no means unique. At the dole office you could meet people who used the dole as a lifestyle, all day every day.

I wised up, went back to university and got myself a degree. But I would still see the same types at centrelink whenever I went to talk about my austudy. The largest group of people who get benefits from centrelink are not people down on their luck or accident victims or carers they are lifestylers.

As you say six weeks out of work is very detrimental. How more so then is 1 year out of work. The very idea that the newly unemployed should be given preference over those out of work for longer periods, beggars belief. How exactly is it a gravy train if private employers find a job for someone who is receiving gov’t benefits. Surely they are saving us money by removing these people from the gov’t payroll.

The fastest and easiest way to move away from paternalism is self sufficiency, ie looking after yourself and not expecting the gov’t to bail you out. If you have an accident then you should get insurance not unemployed workers benefits. Same with carers. It’s not the gov’ts fault that some people are underinsured.

I don’t think you actually understand what paternalism means. If you did you wouldn’t be moaning on about it being the gov’t’s job to retrain you.The system we have here doesn’t favour keeping people on benefits for a year. It ensures that there is little incentive to swap work for a gov’t pay check. Then if you haven’t got off your arse after a year you can access FREE training. Maybe there should be free training for everyone, but that is moving towards more paternalism, not away.

I have been reading with great interest the varying views concerning the relationship between paternalism and welfare in Australia. Before I begin I would like to respond to Paul's comment telling me to mind ny own business. I believe this to be a public forum for debate whereby I have every right to comment on any discussions taking place. Isn't this the whole point of a forum?
Regarding the conflict between welfare dependancy and self sufficiency I have noted a discrepency in what was once the 'living wage' and what is now the 'minimum wage'. The 'living wage' was supposed to allow those workers to support a family, buy a home and enjoy a reasonable standard of living. . I realize there were provisions for aged, disability pensions and deserted wives pensions, but the point I would like to make is that welfare has become such a contentious issue because the minimun wage no longer supports a family in this way. It has become much more difficult to buy a home, feed and clothe your family, educate your children, let alone be able to save for an annual holiday or to cover yourself or your family in case of any future misfortune. People working full-time jobs on a minimum wage are now experiencing a time when their income needs to be supplemented through welfare such as the family allowance and health care cards to help with medical expenses.Where is the self sufficiency when full-time employment still cannot properly support a family? One might say that the market provides the opportunity for workers as a commodity where they may sell their skills, but with the impact of globalisation and the shift in the job market these skills are less saleable. One option is for retraining or development of other skills (which is expensive)and lets face it, there are only a certain amount of higher skill jobs and professions with continuing growth in competition for those jobs and careers. I would like to open this up for discussion and am interested in reading other views.
Regards,

What level of English proficiency Queen Victoria and dozens of others English monarchs residing too often outside kingdom presented?

And what jobs could Einstein and Oppenheim, a father of a nuke bomb, gain in Australia?

All this deliberations of communism and paternalism are ridiculously stupid because based on pure racism and xenophobia with no knowledge of reality and basics, an Australian approach surely.

Dear Michaelk,
Did I imply that I am racist or Xenophopic? I truly hope not, while also recognising my experiences and perceptions extend from life as a white, english speaking, Australian who also happens to be agnostic,female, divorced, raising two sons, one of whom has a disability. I do recognise (while many seem loath to)that Australia is not an egalitarian society with all having equal starting points and possible equal outcomes. I am only in my 2nd yr of studies at une(studying social policy at the moment) while working part-time. Obviously I am a welfare recipient(even when working full-time at my skill level),that is why I decided I needed to increase my opportunities. I feel guilty, less worthy, denigrated.

Dear acass2,

Globalisation has made manufactured goods much cheaper, and therefore has great for consumers.

The difficulties associated with buying are home today are all connected with govt policies which have resulted in prices pushing up eg: negative gearing, first home buyer's grant, and that tax free savings account Kevin Rudd intends to introduce.

The welfare handouts that govt gives us is merely the money were originally paid in tax. If they really want to help us, they should just tax us less, so less bureaucrats are required to redistribute our money back to us. If Kevin Rudd really is serious about cutting spending, this is the first area where spending cuts will be announced in the upcoming budget.

More details can be found here: www.leonbertrand.blogspot.com.

Click on labels 'welfare', 'welfare for the wealthy' tariffs' etc