Politics Centrelink

Remove this Banner Ad

Kram said:
Mate most of these types imo aren't looking for work.

Which in all honestly I'm fine with if they want to live like that on 3 strict conditions. They don't commit crime, they send their kids school every day and lastly they give them some lunch to take with them.
Click to expand...
... which is why I'm not arguing with you. You're live and let live. You think these things are happening, you've life experience that suggests it's occurring, but the degree to which you care is extended to their kid's welbeing.

The above perspective espoused by Goroyals22 is different in two ways:
  • one, they make their statement from a position of supposed expertise/experience. Early in the thread, they stated that they worked for a JSP, and their perspective was built from their time there.
  • two, they are implying that not just one - which is all I'm asking as a demonstration - but multiple newstart recipients are moving to the country and low cost rent in order to stay on the payment long term to take advantage of the system, with that as their key goal.

The implication being, that the system should try and stop such behaviour and strip these people of their payments. But when government makes it harder to claim welfare, it results in people losing their homes and children. It can absolutely be a cause of death, indirectly. You push people out of housing before winter, they die; you deprive them of food or petrol, you embed poverty and poor educative outcomes, and you remove children from their parents.

This is not a conscionable outcome, Kram.
Kram said:
At the end of the day Jobseeker expenditure is so small and it's a small % of the population so again I think we will agree does it really matter supporting these people? But ffs give your damn kids a chance.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree.

But the point of this - where this conversation began - is not an ideological one but one based on facts, what is actually happening. Goroyals22 made the claim, let's see if they can back it up, provide a reason why they shouldn't have to, or retract it.
 
Number37 said:
The only problem with your BS is that the person will lose their payments, so it isn't very clever at all.

View attachment 1507769

View attachment 1507770
Click to expand...

Where the heck did you drag that from?
People are free to move whenever they want regardless of whether you are on centrelink or not….

Im assuming your looking at relocation assistance payments with this, which isn’t the point I was making at all.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gethelred said:
... which is why I'm not arguing with you. You're live and let live. You think these things are happening, you've life experience that suggests it's occurring, but the degree to which you care is extended to their kid's welbeing.

The above perspective espoused by Goroyals22 is different in two ways:
  • one, they make their statement from a position of supposed expertise/experience. Early in the thread, they stated that they worked for a JSP, and their perspective was built from their time there.
  • two, they are implying that not just one - which is all I'm asking as a demonstration - but multiple newstart recipients are moving to the country and low cost rent in order to stay on the payment long term to take advantage of the system, with that as their key goal.

The implication being, that the system should try and stop such behaviour and strip these people of their payments. But when government makes it harder to claim welfare, it results in people losing their homes and children. It can absolutely be a cause of death, indirectly. You push people out of housing before winter, they die; you deprive them of food or petrol, you embed poverty and poor educative outcomes, and you remove children from their parents.

This is not a conscionable outcome, Kram.

I absolutely agree.

But the point of this - where this conversation began - is not an ideological one but one based on facts, what is actually happening. Goroyals22 made the claim, let's see if they can back it up, provide a reason why they shouldn't have to, or retract it.
Click to expand...

Theres no implication that they should be stripped of their payments at all.. I actually gave a proper example by noting that the bus from Milmerran to Toowoomba runs twice weekly which makes it hard for those who have to engage with Jsps to attend their appointments very difficult with
Milmerran being about 50 - 60 mins drive from Toowoomba..

Now some people are more than happy to have that impost as it makes servicing them very difficult as they can really only be done by phone when most should be done fave to face.
 
Goroyals22 said:
Where the heck did you drag that from?
People are free to move whenever they want regardless of whether you are on centrelink or not….

Im assuming your looking at relocation assistance payments with this, which isn’t the point I was making at all.
Click to expand...
Looking at the Social Security Act it does appear to apply to all jobseeker recipients who relocate (edit: to places with fewer prospects) - they would lose payments for 26 weeks. Whether it’s actually applied in practice or not, I have no idea.
 
Goroyals22 said:
Theres no implication that they should be stripped of their payments at all.. I actually gave a proper example by noting that the bus from Milmerran to Toowoomba runs twice weekly which makes it hard for those who have to engage with Jsps to attend their appointments very difficult with
Milmerran being about 50 - 60 mins drive from Toowoomba..

Now some people are more than happy to have that impost as it makes servicing them very difficult as they can really only be done by phone when most should be done fave to face.
Click to expand...
Your original post said this:
Goroyals22 said:
... its why there is a percentage that go to country towns with no connection to the area, rent a small place, claim to have no licence and the bus passes through town once or twice a week ( eg Milmerran to Toowoomba) to take them into the biggest town nearest them where any Jsps and Centrelinks are…

They become impossible to engage with and just play the system.
Click to expand...
... which implies that they are taking advantage of the combination of distance and cheaper rent to game the system. The 'therefore' at play there are:
  • that these people are seeking to become long term Newstart recipients, living on the payment indefinitely; therefore...
  • we should not increase welfare payments and especially the newstart.
  • we should change (or enforce) existing legislation/requirements to prevent those who would seek to game the system in this way.

This is why I object when people on this subforum hide their opinions/beliefs behind innuendo; you get to pretend, "I didn't say that, no sir!" despite absolutely implying it.
Goroyals22 said:
Would you like names, address and photos of these people also… having worked in this industry I have seen and experienced it.. it happens. Its actually very clever
Click to expand...
I would like you to provide a link; surely if it occurs as often as you state, you can provide an example that is publicised.

If you cannot, don't provide private information on a public forum obviously. PM me with details and/or locations, leaving names to one side.
 
Last edited:
Chief said:
And yet if people don't want to move for employment, we get others saying they should lose benefits.

Uproot your life, leave your support networks, kids schools etc otherwise you're not serious about working.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder how all un invaders ended up in Australia. We weren't all convict stock.
( I've moved for employment several times, but its way more common overseas ).
 
Goroyals22 said:
Theres no implication that they should be stripped of their payments at all.. I actually gave a proper example by noting that the bus from Milmerran to Toowoomba runs twice weekly which makes it hard for those who have to engage with Jsps to attend their appointments very difficult with
Milmerran being about 50 - 60 mins drive from Toowoomba..

Now some people are more than happy to have that impost as it makes servicing them very difficult as they can really only be done by phone when most should be done fave to face.
Click to expand...

Population of Milmerran is about 1500 people.

I'm sure it's a huge problem there.
 
Goroyals22 said:
Where the heck did you drag that from?
People are free to move whenever they want regardless of whether you are on centrelink or not….

Im assuming your looking at relocation assistance payments with this, which isn’t the point I was making at all.
Click to expand...

No s**t people can move wherever they want.
You said people move so that they can live the easy life on Centrelink payments.
That's BS.
 
ElectricG said:
Looking at the Social Security Act it does appear to apply to all jobseeker recipients who relocate (edit: to places with fewer prospects) - they would lose payments for 26 weeks. Whether it’s actually applied in practice or not, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

You reckon they might skip that part of the SS Act?
Don't be ridiculous. It's applied in practice like any of the other rules.
 
Gethelred said:
Your original post said this:

... which implies that they are taking advantage of the combination of distance and cheaper rent to game the system. The 'therefore' at play there are:
  • that these people are seeking to become long term Newstart recipients, living on the payment indefinitely; therefore...
  • we should not increase welfare payments and especially the newstart.
  • we should change (or enforce) existing legislation/requirements to prevent those who would seek to game the system in this way.

This is why I object when people on this subforum hide their opinions/beliefs behind innuendo; you get to pretend, "I didn't say that, no sir!" despite absolutely implying it.

I would like you to provide a link; surely if it occurs as often as you state, you can provide an example that is publicised.

If you cannot, don't provide private information on a public forum obviously. PM me with details and/or locations, leaving names to one side.
Click to expand...

For the benefit of what ?? Ive got the experience and seen it in action. Ive provided an example of a town and the location…
Whether you believe it or not really is of no concern to me…
At no point have I made in that post any reference to the jobseeker rate and whether it should be increased or not or implied it or said anything about changing legislation to catch them out. Thats all in your head and what you think . Not me so do what you wish..

Also I don’t know you from a bar of soap so any details are not things you can demand.
 
I know from growing up in Latrobe Valley, there were a lot of housing commission homes there ( My brother bought one for $28 000 sometime in the late 90s ). While most of them were probably built for SEC workers, there were whole estates in Morwell and Churchill that seemed to be filled with single mother family's.

I can't see anything written about it online, but it seems they were relocated to the area.
Caused a big social problem, and a lot of the kids hit employment age around about the time the SEC was privatising, so not so many jobs, or they got one and got laid off a few years later.

I can see benefits to living in cheaper places while unemployed, ( or otherwise needing social security ) but the en-mass thing was a mistake and in this case there was no way for a lot of the kids to break the cycle.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SaintsSeptember said:
I know from growing up in Latrobe Valley, there were a lot of housing commission homes there ( My brother bought one for $28 000 sometime in the late 90s ). While most of them were probably built for SEC workers, there were whole estates in Morwell and Churchill that seemed to be filled with single mother family's.

I can't see anything written about it online, but it seems they were relocated to the area.
Caused a big social problem, and a lot of the kids hit employment age around about the time the SEC was privatising, so not so many jobs, or they got one and got laid off a few years later.

I can see benefits to living in cheaper places while unemployed, ( or otherwise needing social security ) but the en-mass thing was a mistake and in this case there was no way for a lot of the kids to break the cycle.
Click to expand...

Cheap land, economies of scale.
 
The whole system is designed around the assumption that people don't want to work, so everything is punitive and very discouraging. I've often wondered what the mental health impacts would be on people who barely get enough to scrape by week to week, feel that they've got no hope of this ever changing and if that's not enough, being treated as if they're deliberately trying to constantly rort the system, with the threat of comparatively severe financial penalties constantly hanging over their heads.

Or don't these people exist?
 
Goroyals22 said:
For the benefit of what ??
Click to expand...
To ensure that you are not misleading the forum.
Goroyals22 said:
Ive got the experience and seen it in action. Ive provided an example of a town and the location…
Click to expand...
This is enough to state that it could happen, not that it has happened.

I have a question. I state that I saw a man kill a group of people. I state that there is a gun shop nearby, and there is a bus station outside that frequently has a lot of people disembarking from a bus there. Is that enough to prove that the man killed a group of people there?
Goroyals22 said:
Whether you believe it or not really is of no concern to me…
Click to expand...
You're spending a fair amount of time trying for someone unconcerned.
Goroyals22 said:
At no point have I made in that post any reference to the jobseeker rate and whether it should be increased or not or implied it or said anything about changing legislation to catch them out. Thats all in your head and what you think . Not me so do what you wish..
Click to expand...
Dude. You've a fair amount of posts in here now. Your views are pretty plain.
Goroyals22 said:
Also I don’t know you from a bar of soap so any details are not things you can demand.
Click to expand...
To an extent, this is an acceptable reason to avoid demonstrating the facts of that post.

However, should you continue making claims you are unwilling to verify in this thread, you will be threadbanned. This forum has misinformation rules, and facts that cannot be verified need to be queried.
 
Goroyals22 said:
Where the heck did you drag that from?
People are free to move whenever they want regardless of whether you are on centrelink or not….

Im assuming your looking at relocation assistance payments with this, which isn’t the point I was making at all.
Click to expand...
You'd think as a former JSP you would know this isn't true

3.2.1.35 Move to area of lower employment prospects for JSP, YA & SpB recipients | Social Security Guide

Lowering employment prospects
guides.dss.gov.au guides.dss.gov.au
 
www.theguardian.com

Chair of Australia’s job services inquiry questions privatisation, likens compliance to Squid Game

MP Julian Hill says some ‘stunts’ in the employment services system only push people further into poverty
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


So Julian Hill has come out with some fairly obvious criticisms of the current setup of welfare and privatization, hopefully this is the start of something good

Hill said the objective of supporting people into good jobs was “absent entirely” from the current system.

“The impact on disadvantaged people, communities, employers and the labour market of the policies used to achieve these two objectives are secondary considerations,” Hill told the National Employment Services Association’s annual conference on Tuesday.
Click to expand...
 
The full squid games reference from the speech

Another area of interest and concern is the impact of payment cancellations. Let’s call this the surprise appearance of me as the fish: I have to say I was one stunned mullet, when I read and explored the Targeted Compliance Framework and the ‘Penalty Zone’. It felt like Boston Consulting meets Squid Game in a dystopian reality TV show that we make citizens play every day.
 
GreyCrow said:
I saw a tweet the other day that literally had '' I just had my little baby - long term welfare here I come''
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I have seen a particular routine play out with several people:

  • Give birth to a child
  • Separate from the child's father
  • Get on Parenting Payment/Sole Parent Pension
  • Claim child support from the father
  • Before Parenting Payment ends on the child's 8th birthday, have a baby by another man
  • Separate from him too
  • Repeat until you're no longer of child-bearing age
  • Even when Parenting Payment ends, Centrelink only requires you to look for part-time work until your youngest child turns 16
  • By that time you're only about 12 years away from age pension age
I'm not saying women routinely start relationships and give birth with a view to getting on single parent welfare. People partner and separate for a variety of reasons. But I have seen the above several times.
 
Rotayjay said:
Unfortunately I have seen a particular routine play out with several people:

  • Give birth to a child
  • Separate from the child's father
  • Get on Parenting Payment/Sole Parent Pension
  • Claim child support from the father
  • Before Parenting Payment ends on the child's 8th birthday, have a baby by another man
  • Separate from him too
  • Repeat until you're no longer of child-bearing age
  • Even when Parenting Payment ends, Centrelink only requires you to look for part-time work until your youngest child turns 16
  • By that time you're only about 12 years away from age pension age
I'm not saying women routinely start relationships and give birth with a view to getting on single parent welfare. People partner and separate for a variety of reasons. But I have seen the above several times.
Click to expand...
can also (and more likely be) that once having borne that child and separating that opportunity for employment is difficult, when you combine in child care costs as well, and by the time that first child is 7 or 8 you've also been out of the workforce a significant time, so you are realistically a bit less employable..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top