There was a time when Indigenous Australian wages wern’t only less than half of the rest of Australia’s they were said to be government managed. $50 million went missing. Along with this “management” came an attached stigmatised negative reputation that has lasted 200 years that justified good white christian behaviour that prevented rather than assisted indigenous Australians to become like the rest of Australia. Debt, inheritance and capital gains were never and option. Only what they were given. They were and are still blamed for their historical demise. Is it any wonder they went walk about? Today the LNP government is inviting the rest of Australia to join them with their new welfare card and all the obligations that come with it. Some Australian no matter their color are to be treated as the Indigenous have for hundreds of years and we are now and only now it seems shocked. (ODT)
Stripping away people’s right to manage their own finances, making them second-class citizens, having to endure abuse and stigmatisation, being automatically branded as drug/alcohol abusers, being financially worse off due to extra fees and charges for using the card, plus penalties for when Indue fail to pay bills set up for direct debit is all OK by you?
Being denied opportunities to make ends meet by accessing cheaper options via markets, garage sales, eBay, buy/sell groups, many online stores, cash in hand sales/repairs etc, is OK by you?
I haven’t telephoned Centrelink in over three years, but I still have a conditioned reaction of immediate panic whenever I hear the Centrelink hold music. The number of hours I spent listening to the cheery Mozart string arrangement over tinny mobile phone speakers doesn’t bear thinking about; it must be in the hundreds. Every minute of those endless hours was torturous, especially since most calls to Centrelink involve the risk that your meagre welfare allotment is under threat (or has already been suspended).
‘People shouldn’t be allowed to take advantage of the poor’ says 52-year-old Graham who, like many vulnerable members of society, has had to shell out more than half of his meagre income on substandard housing.
The subject matter of this post is in the main the work of Dr Dale Kerwin of the School of Education, Mt Gravatt Campus, Griffith University. I received an email from a friend asking me to share its contents. I thought it worthy of the wide audience THE AIMN attracts.
When Joe Hockey decided that the Age of Entitlement was over he was of course not referring to politicians. In his May 2014 budget he set about cutting the entitlements of those least able to afford it. There needed to be more cash for those more entitled and privileged. He set about attacking those out of work, family payments and pensioners.
Some of the budget cuts were so harsh that even the Business Council of Australia, the lobby group for the biggest of big businesses, was moved to protest: “We are very concerned about the risk that savings are falling too heavily on some families and young people trying to find work,” said its chief executive, Jennifer Westacott.
The deputy prime minister and leader of the National Party, Warren Truss, said this about age pensioners in a post-budget speech to Brisbane’s Conservative Club: “Increasingly the lifestyle – and the savings for superannuation – are being seen as the opportunity to enjoy a few cruises and the luxuries of life for a few years until it runs out and then people wish to fall back on the aged pension.”
The (former) Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews, told a press conference: “The days of easy welfare for young people is over. We want a fair system, but we don’t think it’s fair that young people can just sit on the couch at home and pick up a welfare cheque.”
With regards to aged pensions Dr Kerwin makes this point:
“I absolutely agree, if a pension isn’t an entitlement, neither is theirs. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn’t sustainable.Paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable! The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of Entitlements is over”.
Here are some proposals for the lifters, as Joe is font of calling the entitled. Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now that the Age of Entitlement is over:
1. Scrap political pensions.
Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most other working Australians are expected to do.
2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in Centrelink.
A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they’re out of office. Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians.
Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people.
3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians’ retirement fund be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue.
This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them.
4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%.
5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people, i.e. politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare.
6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people.
7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/14.
He further suggests that:
“The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them. Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves.
Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work”.
If you are wondering why Dr Kirwin is circulating his email take a look at the following figures.
REMUNERATION FOR – SPECIFIED STATUTORY OFFICES
Date of Effect 1 July 2014
Specified Statutory Office
Base Salary (per annum)
Total Remuneration for office (per annum)
Chief of the Defense Force > $535,100 – $764,420
Commissioner of Taxation > $518,000 – $740,000
Chief Executive Officer, Australian Customs
and Border Protection Service > $483,840 – $691,200
Auditor-General for Australia > $469,150 – $670,210
Australian Statistician > $469,150 – $670,210
Salaries of retired Prime Minister and Politicians
Office Additional salary (%) Salary as of 1 July
Prime Minister 160 $507,338
Deputy Prime Minister 105 $400,016
Treasurer 87.5 $365,868
Leader of the Opposition 85.0 $360,990
House of Reps Speaker 75.0 $341,477
Leader of the House 75.0 $341,477
Minister in Cabinet 72.5 $336,599
Parliamentary secretary 25.0 $243,912
Other ministers 57.5 $307,329
Shadow minister 25.0 $243,912
Source: Remuneration Tribunal.
So if I press all the right buttons, the TOTAL annual wages for the 150 seats in the Parliament are:
Prime Minister $507,338
Deputy Prime Minister $400,016
Leader of the Opposition $360,990
House of Reps Speaker $341,477
Leader of the House $341,477
Minister in Cabinet $336,599
Parliamentary secretary $243,912
Other ministers* 307,329 x 71 = A$21,820,359
Shadow ministers* $243,912 x 71 = A$17,317,752
The TOTAL ANNUAL SALARIES (for 150 seats) = $41,694,311 – PER YEAR! And that’s just the Federal Politicians, no one else!
For the ‘lifetime’ payment example (below) I used the scenario that:
1. They are paid ‘lifetime’ salaries the same as their last working year and
2. After retiring, the ‘average’ pollie’s life expectancy is an additional 20 years (which is not unreasonable).
It’s worth remembering that this is EXCLUDING all their other perks!
SO, for a 20 years ‘lifetime’ payment (excluding wages paid while a Parliamentarian)
Prime Minister @ $507,338 = A$10,146,760
Deputy Prime Minister @ $400,016 = A$8,000,320
Treasurer @ $365,868 = A$7,317,360
Leader of the Opposition @ $360,990 = A$7,219,800
House of Reps Speaker @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540
Leader of the House @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540
Minister in Cabinet @ $336,599 = A$6,731,980
Parliamentary Secretary @ $243,912 = A$4,782,240
Other ministers** @ $307,329 = A$6,146,580 x 71 = A$436,407,180
Shadow ministers** @ $243,912 = A$4,878,240 x 71 = A$346,355,040
TOTAL ‘life time’ (20 year) payments, (excluding wages paid while in parliament) = A$833,886,220 – OVER $833 MILLION
Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, et al, add nauseum, are receiving $10 MILLION + EXTRA at taxpayer expense.
Should an elected PM serve 4 years and then decide to retire, each year (of the 4 years) will have cost taxpayers an EXTRA Two and a half million bucks a year! A$2,536,690 to be precise.
A 2 year retirement payment cut-off will SAVE our Oz bottom line A$792,201,909 *** NEARLY $800 MILLION.
There are 150 seats in House, minus the 8 above = 142 seats, divided equally for example = 71 each for both shadow and elected ministers.
This example excludes all wages paid while a parliamentarian AND all perks on top of that – travel, hotels, Secretarial staff, speech writers, restaurants, offices, chauffeured limos, security, etc. etc.
150 seats, 20-year payment of A$833,886,220 less annual salary x 2 years of A$83,388,622. [$41,694,311 x 2]
“Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks”. (Doug Larson. English middle-distance runner who won gold medals at the 1924 Olympic Games in Paris, 1902-1981).
So it seems that Joe Hockey now infamous budget was very clear. The age of entitlement is over but it doesn’t apply to politicians. They are to remain forever entitled or until electorate demands that it not be so.
ACTION: Push for a MAX 2 year post retirement payment (give ‘em time to get a real job).
Dr. Dale Kerwin
School of Education
Contact details available on request.
The line of Survivor Class vessels consist mostly of older, barely seaworthy ships that have little or no medical support staff. They normally travel five to seven days out of Miami to a deserted island populated only with Komodo dragons and huge vampire bats that dwell deep within the island’s extensive underground cave complex.
Passengers are treated to free food and drink on the way out while being exposed to a wide variety of deadly pathogens and an unusually high level of ionizing radiation emanating from spent nuclear fuel rods stored in the hull of each ship. The passengers are then dumped on the island with the only medical care provided by a witch doctor and two cannibal nurses from New Guinea. Those who survive for a week or longer are then picked up and transported back to the mainland where they are given various awards at a gala party on South Beach.
Carnival’s spokesman Captain William Bligh told reporters that the company will monitor the results of the additional virus before adding it to Carnival’s remaining ships, which are already teeming with waterborne pathogens such as the Norwalk virus, E. coli, Clostridium botulinum, and Salmonella typhi, just to name a few.
“We want to build on the success we had last year when we introduced Enterobius vermicularis to our Disney Class vessels, which cater to families with kids,” said Captain Bligh. “As you know E. vermicularis causes peri-anal itching, hyperactivity, nervous irritability, and insomnia. It was a big hit with our customers who want to educate their kids about what life has in store for them.”
The cruise line is currently in negotiation with a group of renegade ex-Soviet scientists and is hopeful that weaponized anthrax, smallpox, and bubonic plague can be added to the toxic sludge now present in the water supply of their beautiful ships.
Training colleges securing thousands in Government funds by targeting people with disabilities
“You’re selling them a lie because they don’t have the capacity to get that job.”
“They’ll never get that diploma so they’ll never get that job. But they’ll always have that debt.” – NSW Teachers Federation’s Maxine Sharkey
Unscrupulous training colleges are targeting people with disabilities and the homeless in order to cash in on government education funding.
Unscrupulous training colleges are targeting people with disabilities and the homeless in order to cash in on government education funding.
Australia’s richest seven people have more wealth than the bottom 1.73 million households combined. Most people think that’s a problem. Amanda Vanstone, on the other hand, seems to think the bottom 1.73 million should be thankful.
“The politics of envy”. This is Amanda Vanstone’s condescending dismissal of concerns over Australia’s rapidly growing gap between its richest and poorest citizens.
How often, she asks, have we heard that wealth inequality is growing and that something is wrong with this? How often? One fewer times than necessary, it seems.
Vanstone says that 2 per cent of taxpayers pay more than 25 per cent of all income tax, and suggests this is something we should be grateful to the wealthiest for.
But the reason so few pay so much tax is that income inequality is so great. That is, 2 per cent pay 25 per cent of tax because 2 per cent earn so much more than the rest of us. The statistics she quotes is a symptom of income inequality, and the starkness of the figure reveals the starkness of the problem.
With a progressive income tax system such as ours, where those at the top end claim a larger and larger share of total income, it is inevitable that they will pay a larger share of tax. Is she suggesting that the wealthy should pay less tax as their share of total income rises?
“Make no mistake”, she continues, “we need Australians to get rich”.
Nobody became a teacher, police officer or nurse to get their name on the BRW Rich List. They’re not in it to “get rich”. Is Australia really best served by having our daycare centre workers striving to be the next Gina Rinehart? Do we want teachers and ambulance drivers ruthlessly chasing wealth?
Vanstone relies on the stale class rhetoric of the 1980s when she claims that “since only about 45 per cent of the population pay income tax, it followers that, on average, taxpayers have to pay twice that amount in tax in order to fund welfare.”
Cue the pitchforks. Welfare queenism is alive and well, it seems. Or, at least it seems that way, until you consider this significant addendum, curiously unmentioned by the columnist: almost half of the 7.4 million adult Australians who don’t pay tax are either retirees – who have worked and paid tax their whole lives – or students, who are soon to start working and paying tax their whole lives.
When Vanstone grumbles that taxpayers are being asked to “fund welfare” to the tune of “more than a month’s work for many”, is she suggesting that pensioners shouldn’t be supported in their old age?
Is she suggesting that students shouldn’t be supported in getting an education? It is strange that she forgets to tell us that university graduates go on to make substantially more income than those without a degree. And via income tax, they more than pay back into the system what they’ve received, as Education Minister Christopher Pyne is so fond of reminding us.
If we want a prosperous Australia, we want an equal Australia. Vanstone’s defence of the 1 per cent (or is it 2 per cent?) calls on all of us to focus less on the gap between rich and poor, and more on social mobility. We don’t want to attack the rich, we want to create more rich!
This ignores the fact that the two are inseparable. Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, Standard & Poor’s, and the IMF have all released research backed by rigorous analysis that demonstrates inequality hinders economic growth. It is now economic orthodoxy that too much inequality makes growth volatile and unstable.
But Vanstone is not really concerned about the economics. For her, this is an ideological issue, shabbily dressed up as an economic one.
Vanstone asks us to make a choice that doesn’t exist. We do not need to choose between taxing the rich more and having less rich. We don’t have to choose between having less inequality and having less total income. If anything, the opposite is true.
Shadow Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh reminded us in March that “Australia is a stronger nation when we act together than when we pull apart”. If this is true, Vanstone’s derisive and inflammatory rhetoric is out of step with Australia’s sense of the fair go.
The economic debate is over. If we want Australia to be a richer nation, we must also want it to be a fairer nation.
- Petitioning The Australian Government
Stop Deaths in Custody
- Petition by
- Justice for Julieka
On August 4th, Julieka Dhu became another death in custody statistic to the Western Australia police and the Australian government. On that very same day, Julieka’s family and friends were devastated and very shocked- they had been told twice that she was doing ‘fine’ when she was very far from being ok. She was, in fact, grievously ill, she was wounded and she needed immediate help. She was twice cleared by Hedland Health Campus to be returned to police custody, even though an autopsy shows that at the time, she would have been suffering with a head injury, a possibly re-fractured rib, with bleeding in and around her lung. Witnesses have stated that she was begging for help but was dismissed as a ‘druggie’ and then a ‘mental case’.
Julieka was failed by the system. Nobody deserves to die like that, wounded, begging for help and being mocked and dismissed. All because she had around $1,000 in unpaid fines. This latest tragedy could easily have been prevented.
In 1987, the Hawke government set up the Royal commission into Indigenous deaths in custody, to help find out why Indigenous deaths in custody were so prevalent and to address how to stop it. When the commission handed down its findings, the Australian government lost it’s right to feign ignorance of the issue. The commission made over 300 recommendations to either eliminate or significantly reduce deaths in custody. Yet very few, if any were ever acted upon.
Twenty years of nothing while Indigenous Australians die in horrendous conditions, often for trifling offences, while under the DUTY OF CARE of police is unacceptable.
We are done waiting for the police, state or federal governments to decide that this needs to stop. We are demanding:
1. Timely coronial inquest into Ms Dhu’s death in custody
- Timely, regular and culturally competent communication to families
- Royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody
- No imprisonment as penalty for non-payment of fines and infringement
- 24hr legal advice custody notification and R U OK phone line
- 24hn medical coverage at watch house and on call medical assistance at lockups
- Independent public inquiry into systemic racism, sexism in the justice system
- Independent authority to investigate all custodial deaths
- New criminal offenses of corporate and custodial manslaughter
- Inspector of custodial services to oversee all lock ups in WA
- Build communities, not prisons
That is why, on Thursday, 23rd October, Australia will march, with a national ‘STOP DEATHS IN CUSTODY’ rally, held simultaneously throughout Geraldton, Perth, Adelaide, South Hedland, Sydney, and Melbourne. We will no longer allow the government and its agencies to ignore this issue. We will be heard!
Andrew Forrest’s report on Indigenous employment and welfare makes incorrect assertions, is unbalanced and would be conducting a “massive social experiment” on vulnerable people if the recommendations were taken up, the National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) has warned.
The miner’s proposal to create a cashless welfare card with restrictions on its use has the potential to cause significant damage, according to NWRN, which also criticised the proposal to have principals decide whether students should have access to Youth Allowance.
NWRN said it was a “real concern” the report had moved away from the terms of reference and offered broad comments on matters outside the scope of Forrest’s review.
“This has resulted in a report that tends to simplify some issues, perhaps trivialise others, and appears polemical and aggressive towards those with alternative views,” it said in a submission to the review seen by Guardian Australia.
Forrest released the report, titled Creating Parity in August, after being asked by the prime minister to review how to improve Indigenous employment outcomes. It is currently in the consultation stage before the government decides which recommendations to take up.
Forrest has warned the government against a piecemeal approach saying for the overhaul of the employment and welfare system to be effective every recommendation must be upheld, a claim NWRN rejected.
Forrest’s recommendation to give school principals the power to veto claims for Youth Allowance would harm “community, family and school inter-relationships”, the submission said.
“It will also mean that social security decision-making will be applied inconsistently to different citizens depending on the school they happen to attend. Income support claims and payment should be based on legislative criteria, and based on an objective assessment of need,” the submission said.
“This proposal also places an additional burden on school principals who already have huge responsibilities.”
NWRN said the healthy welfare card, which would be compulsory for people on income support and would not be able to be used for alcohol or gambling, appears to have been “driven by good intention” but the proposal was “unacceptable in its current form”.
“People living on the lowest incomes in Australia would be subjected to a massive social experiment, the likes of which we have not seen before. A denial of access to 100% of a person’s social security entitlements in cash is unprecedented, and, arguably, a serious breach of human rights,” it said.
The submission said not allowing people claiming income support to have cash would make them subject to the $10 minimum spends many shops impose on eftpos cards and would even make it difficult for children to attend events with a “gold coin” donation at schools.
Forrest has defended the card, arguing it allows people to budget and avoid gambling, illegal drugs or alcohol.
“Humbug [begging for money in Indigenous communities that can involve violence] ravages vulnerable communities and hence, vulnerable people. This is directly what we heard in our submissions, and it is how we came upon a solution for the option of cashless welfare payments,” Forrest wrote soon after the review was released.
“Alcohol, gambling and illegal drugs are destroying vulnerable Indigenous and other families and communities across Australia. The other 26 recommendations of the Forrest review are empowered by the card and together will end disparity while promoting considerable economic activity.”
NWRN called the focus on early childhood in the review “positive” and welcomed the intentions to target support and integrate education services. However, it warned cutting Family Tax Benefits payments if children did not meet school attendance targets would harms both parents and children.
“This approach does not address the real reasons why young people fail to regularly attend school,” it said.
NWRN said it was ironic the only mention of disability in the report was about stopping people eligible for Newstart and Youth Allowance testing their eligibility for Disability Support Pension (DSP)
“It is difficult to respond to this recommendation as it seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the current system,” the submission said.
“There is no current ability or discretion to transfer somebody from an activity-tested payment to the Disability Support Pension (DSP). A person may only be granted the Disability Support Pension if a claim is made and they meet all relevant medical and residential qualifications. The bar is a high one. Only 42% of claims for DSP are successful.”
The NWRN submission said the report called for the removal of all discretion for granting exemptions from activity testing but failed to recognise the strict guidelines already in place.
“Any tightening of the existing strict rules would cause great hardship for people facing issues such as pregnancy, homelessness, serious mental illness, or domestic violence,” the submission said.
The submission lauded Forrest’s recommendation for the top 200 companies to increase Indigenous employment to 4% but said a similar target should also apply to Indigenous people with a disability.
NWRN does not support the creation of tax-free status for Indigenous businesses and social enterprises and said the review could have focused more on structural issues and barriers to regional development.
“We have concluded that the proposals in the report are unbalanced in that they are largely dismissive of training activities,” the submission said.
Parliamentary secretary for the prime minister, Alan Tudge, says there is broad support in the community for the report’s recommendations.
“They know that change has to be made. They like that Andrew Forrest’s report is so comprehensive, going from early childhood all the way through to training and employment,” he told ABC Perth on Tuesday.
“Of course there are some disagreements over the tough love measures, particularly for example linking welfare to school attendance. Some people like that, others don’t. But overall, we’ve had a pretty good response.”
Tudge said some Aboriginal leaders had suggested the Healthy Welfare Card be on an opt-in basis rather than compulsory, with 50 to 80% of a person’s welfare available on it and the rest available in cash.
He said the Cabinet was taking the recommendations “very, very seriously”.
“We know that grog is destroying many of these communities. We know that school attendance sits at about 60% in many of the remote places which means that kids are effectively not learning and will end up on the welfare queue. We know there are an insufficient number of people in work,” Tudge said.
“So we’ve got to do things differently. Forrest has presented us with an ambitious report. It’s a wide ranging report. We are carefully considering every single one of those recommendations.”
Kevin Andrews Oh f**k they say he’s even further right than Abbott. He has $20 mill and can’t give it away. 100,000 marriage counseling vouchers for de facto couples in the hope they might get married. $200 a pop and he has off loaded only 4000. How Catholic of him he and his wife get done as R&R every now and then. My partner and I have been in a de facto relationship for 43 years. I wonder what the counselor would have to say to us. The majority of our friends have been serially married maybe he should find takers amongst them. But know it’s only for de factos. He apparently has been trying the wedding fairs and nobody stops. Because their in love Kevin. Sounds as if he will get rid of them in 2016 in the LNP election showbag
In December 2013, as Social Services Minister, Andrews introduced to the House of Representatives a bill repealing almost all of the gambling harm-minimisation measures passed by the Gillard Labor government in November 2012. a straight capitulation to the power of the pokies lobby,”.
Australian Hotels Association are on of the top donars to the liberal party.
We currently hear from our Social Services minister:Mr Andrews has already revealed the government is looking at changes that would see more people under the age of 40 on the DSP checked to see whether they could work and temporary payments for potentially impermanent conditions to prevent the number of those in the system from ballooning to one million.Under Mr Andrews’ mooted change, disability pensioners who were assessed by their family doctors – before Labor tightened the system in 2011 – would be re-examined by medical experts at the Department of Human Services.
” nation’s welfare system is “unsustainable” and large, urgent changes must be made to the disability pension and the general unemployment benefit.”
Andrews is pushing the idea that pensioners suffering “episodic” illnesses such as depression should be given monthly or quarterly medical certificates rather than getting two-year “set and forget” pensions. This idea, he said, was particularly important given there were now more disability pensioners suffering from psychological conditions. However Mr Andrews was able to find $20 million for marriage guidance counseling vouchers. This of course has nothing to do with the fact that he and his wife are/were involved in the marriage counseling business.
On August 4th, Minister for Social Services Kevin Andrews launched 2014 Homeless Persons Week
“We have made a good start with all states and territories signing the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which will allow us to start working collaboratively to achieve a lasting legacy of helping all Australians find appropriate housing.”
What Mr Andrews fails to point out is that the states and territories already had a signed deal with the previous government and he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to renew that commitment, but in so doing, he cut $44 million that was to be spent on capital works or 10,000 houses.
Kevin Andrew’s media release:
“In the year ahead we will review housing and homelessness policies and programmes to examine ways to improve housing supply and affordability. This review will feed into the Government’s White Papers on Reform of the Federation and on taxation.”
Urgent has been yet again replaced by investigative committees and exhaustive consultaion to look into the matter.
When talking about the importance of education in breaking the cycle of homelessness, Tony Abbott made much of his decision to spend $30 million on truancy officers to keep aboriginal kids in school. He did not mention that his government cut $1.6 million in funding in November for a school bus service that transported students from town camps to five schools in Alice Springs. The plan is to punish the parents for their children’s inability to get to school.
Add to this the cuts to legal aid and family violence programs, the closure of many refuges, and the withdrawal of any support for young people for half the year, and it is clear that this government has no concern about a growing problem and are instead exacerbating the situation of our most vulnerable citizens.It appears Andrews is reflecting on how to abrogate any federal responsibility by passing the buck to the states.
With the crisis in youth unemployment, and the government’s focus on “earn or learn”, they also made the inexplicable decision to cut funding to the Youth Connections program which provides funding to local youth services to support young people at risk of disengaging from education and work. This has been regarded as an extremely successful program. Youth Connections fills a critical gap in services and with youth unemployment at crisis levels in some areas, it’s just not the time to be cutting a program like this.”The average cost of putting a young person through a Youth Connections program is just over $2000. Youth Connections works, it’s cost effective and it makes absolutely no sense when the Government’s talking about reducing unemployment to cut the very programs that help unemployed young people into the training they need or into the jobs that they can stick to.
I believe he thinks he is doing extremely well as the Minister for Homelessness as those figures are showing a marked rise. I can picture Kevin and Eric doing high fives in the corridors of parliament celebrating the rises in their respective graphs
People under 25 will have to wait 6 months for unemployment benefits. Who will support them in the interim their family or friends if they have any. It’s NOT A TAX
I know an ill person who needs weekly blood tests and needs to see a doctor each week. That’s an extra $700 per year. It’s NOT A TAX.
He is under 35 so Abbott wants him off his PDS and on New Start a reduction of $120 a week. That’s a 30% reduction. Ofcourse if he has a family they’ll pay. To make things worse Keven Andrews is suggestig policing spending. It’s NOT A TAX.
Driving people off welfare is not SHARING THE BURDEN it’s making sure the a lot of families can’t save anything. They are literaly running on empty , live on credit & pay 20% interest in doing so. This is what Abbott & Hockey call basket case economics it has to be fixed an this is the way to fix the books. He is handballing the problem and riding on the backs of ordinary families to do it.
The wealthy get 55 days interest free on their credit cards and can minimize their costs while ordinary families play ring around my credit cards & not by choice. After all the cards are easy enough to get even the family dog is sent one by the banks. The wealthy & businesses owe billions of dollars in unpaid taxes and super which the government writes off or discounts in order to get something. No discounts for working families I’m afraid only government negotiated unemployment and the pain of sharing this burden. Holden a case in point.
Abbott Hockey and their ilk run around in lycra and smoke cigars. Welfare is a foriegn country to their families. One they never have to visit or even consider. Surely if gov revenue has fallen and the disjunct between ordinary & wealthy has grown a tax on spending and vigilance on tax avoidance by individuals and business would have been fairer. Glencore the biggest coal miner made $15bill profit on which the paid no tax. We subsidised their fuel costs recieved nothing in return. They could have done nothing and made a profit.
The coalition agenda to deregulate the finance sector is caused the GFC in the first place. Australia was saved from the worst of the financial crisis because our banks were regulated. Australians will be presented with a range of crazy junk product as happened in the US will be courted by planners who again neither have to reveal their commissions nor operate in their best interest. It’s putting the hens back in the hen house with the foxes still there and a door sign Caveat Emptor, Buyer Beware.
CBA is in the news currently for lending money, designing product & selling the product with commissions at every step all in house. They don’t create anything of use only collect rent on shuffling paper. The more they shuffle the more they make.