Politics Centrelink

[Rotayjay]

That was my position pre Xmas, the best way to fire up the flat economy then.

When we cant get fruit picked at the moment, something is awry.

Maybe because fruit picking is terrible work that pays bugger all and the unemployed should not be forced to starve as an incentive to travel 3,000 km to a temporary fruit picking gig.

 

[DaRick]

Maybe because fruit picking is terrible work that pays bugger all and the unemployed should not be forced to starve as an incentive to travel 3,000 km to a temporary fruit picking gig.

Border closures would also be an inconvenience methinks.

 

[Rotayjay]

Ministers Ruston, Robert and Cash are all clowns. Cash the stupidest of them all, whose only response when questioned about the old Newstart rate was the usual talking point 'the best form of welfare is a job.' That comment is less than useless to a person who is trying their best to find a job and is having to choose between rent, medication or three meals per day.

 

[yodellinhank]

Ministers Ruston, Robert and Cash are all clowns. Cash the stupidest of them all, whose only response when questioned about the old Newstart rate was the usual talking point 'the best form of welfare is a job.' That comment is less than useless to a person who is trying their best to find a job and is having to choose between rent, medication or three meals per day.

Jobs going fruit pickin'

 

[Kram]

One thing I think they could do is look at trimming payments of people that don't send their bloody kids to school. There's multiple children in my street with with single figure % attendance records. They don't cause any trouble or anything but how is the poverty loop supposed to be broken with no education?

 

[Bombermania]

Jobs going fruit pickin'

Not every job seeker is suitable for fruit picking and it does nothing to help them get a more long lasting job.

 

[Rotayjay]

The requirement to provide a Centrelink Employment Separation Certificate will be reintroduced from 1 January. I wonder how that will go down with the employers of people whose hours have been merely reduced. Give an employee fewer shifts and then they need to approach you for a document stating the employee-employer relationship is over.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The requirement to provide a Centrelink Employment Separation Certificate will be reintroduced from 1 January. I wonder how that will go down with the employers of people whose hours have been merely reduced. Give an employee fewer shifts and then they need to approach you for a document stating the employee-employer relationship is over.

they wont need encouragement too

one place i worked at while in uni had standard shifts at 4-6 hours, and everyone get 3-5 shifts a week. When they wanted to nudge you out, you would get one 3 hour shift at the most inconvenient time of the week

employers will love this shit

 

[DaRick]

The requirement to provide a Centrelink Employment Separation Certificate will be reintroduced from 1 January. I wonder how that will go down with the employers of people whose hours have been merely reduced. Give an employee fewer shifts and then they need to approach you for a document stating the employee-employer relationship is over.

That's assuming they even bother signing the document.

I've known people who've had to forge their employer's signature because their employer was an ass.

 

[Rotayjay]

That's assuming they even bother signing the document.

I've known people who've had to forge their employer's signature because their employer was an ass.

Technically it's a criminal offence under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 not to supply one if asked by a former employee. However, that threat doesn't really help when someone is unemployed with no money and their Centrelink claim is being delayed because the employer is taking their sweet time filling out a sheet. As a last resort, Centrelink can try to call the employer and get the details verbally.

Before the pandemic struck, Centrelink required a formal Employment Separation Certificate for:

1. Verifying that the person is actually unemployed (fear that people have jobs and want to claim unemployment benefits ... not sure how common that was)

2. Verifying the date they became unemployed (which affects the start date of benefit)

3. Verifying the reason for unemployment (if a person leaves a suitable job without a reasonable excuse or is dismissed due to misconduct, there is a four-week wait for Jobseeker)

4. Verifying whether there was any final payout such as leave or redundancy and, if so, how much (this can also lead to a waiting period depending on how many working hours/weeks/days it covers)

When the pandemic struck, the requirement for these certificates was (quite sensibly) tossed out. When the requirement is reintroduced, there will be many delays. I guess they're trying to refine the balance between preventing fraud and processing claims quickly.

 

[Over The Post]

I am so sick of those two campaigners Cash and Ruston dropping announcements that affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people late on Friday afternoon, too late to be on the 6pm news and three days stale by the time Monday's news cycle comes around.

Just another example of leading by contempt.

 

[Over The Post]

Federal Government ends Robodebt class action with settlement worth $1.2 billion

The Commonwealth agrees to a settlement worth $1.2 billion over its unlawful Robodebt recovery program, which raised automated debts against hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients.

www.abc.net.au

 

[campbell]

Federal Government ends Robodebt class action with settlement worth $1.2 billion

The Commonwealth agrees to a settlement worth $1.2 billion over its unlawful Robodebt recovery program, which raised automated debts against hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients.

www.abc.net.au

I am not up with this.
Did people have to sig up to the class action, or were they automatically apartof it due to having a robodebt?
Also, does this mean they are now going to get another payout for the illegal schemes treatment of them?

 

[campbell]

I am so sick of those two campaigners Cash and Ruston dropping announcements that affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people late on Friday afternoon, too late to be on the 6pm news and three days stale by the time Monday's news cycle comes around.

Just another example of leading by contempt.

Ah, the fxck you Friday bombshells.
Nasty managers and leaders do this,when they want to drop and run.
Disgraceful.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You a fan of kicking people when they're down?

Curious

Who am i kicking?

Is she the minister?
Does she get paid more or less than other ministers? Do other people with good jobs get paid even more?
If you don't like it try to make her not the Minister.
No point bitching about what she gets paid.

If Bill Gates gave all his money to the poor, they would get around $100 each, and BIll would join them.

 

[Gethelred]

If Bill Gates gave all his money to the poor, they would get around $100 each, and BIll would join them.

Be pretty transformative for all of them, including Bill.

 

[go you pups]

Who am i kicking?

Is she the minister?
Does she get paid more or less than other ministers? Do other people with good jobs get paid even more?
If you don't like it try to make her not the Minister.
No point bitching about what she gets paid.

If Bill Gates gave all his money to the poor, they would get around $100 each, and BIll would join them.

Ministers shouldn't be justifying their heartless decisions based off a Hurrdurrism that all welfare recipients (bludgers to her) spend their cash on drugs and booze

Anne Ruston - what a shocker - The AIM Network

You may not have heard of the woman that some describe as Australia’s answer to Margaret Thatcher. But she is busy trying to remedy that. [...]

theaimn.com

She's an absolute disgrace of a human being that is not fit for her portfolio and does not deserve to be defended in anyway when talking about welfare payments, I'm extremely surprised the Coalition even agreed to the 12 month Jobkeeper/Coronavirus supplement program, goes completely against many in their party ideology

 

[Rotayjay]

It's ironic. These absolute campaigners tried to save taxpayer money by taking as much staff intervention out of debt calculation as possible, and by clawing back welfare payments from Australia's most vulnerable who often cannot defend themselves or prove their innocence.

Yet now they are having to spend MORE of our tax dollars paying back these false debts, fighting it tooth and nail in court, and paying extra compensation for the pain and suffering they caused in the pursuit of ideology and tax cuts for the wealthy. Was it worth it, LNP?

I would like to see a Royal Commission so those responsible can be exposed for the cheats they are. But I would settle for a 'full stop' on this matter, so that this sort of debt raising programme is never, ever tried again.

 

[Rotayjay]

The truly disgusting thing is just how much the Coalition hates welfare. Always trying to gut the system, cut the levels of staff administering it, making it more complex, hounding applicants and recipients for documents and proof, making them jump through ever-harder hoops.

I get that being dependent on welfare is highly damaging for the individual, their family and society at large. But the Coalition takes keeping people off welfare and getting people off welfare to the extreme.

How is a Jobseeker recipient meant to 'learn to budget' when the payment is $280 to $350 a week? How are they meant to 'learn to budget' when 80% of their payment is quarantined on a cashless card? That scheme in select areas is literally called the Income Quarantine scheme by Centrelink, despite the retail branding of Indue. How are people meant to find suitable, sustained employment when you are making them starve and unable to afford heating, cooling, specialist medical treatment or decent clothes like all the other job applicants they are competing with?

 

[Hawk Dork]

The truly disgusting thing is just how much the Coalition hates welfare.

They believe only rich people should get welfare

 

[go you pups]

The truly disgusting thing is just how much the Coalition hates welfare. Always trying to gut the system, cut the levels of staff administering it, making it more complex, hounding applicants and recipients for documents and proof, making them jump through ever-harder hoops.

I get that being dependent on welfare is highly damaging for the individual, their family and society at large. But the Coalition takes keeping people off welfare and getting people off welfare to the extreme.

How is a Jobseeker recipient meant to 'learn to budget' when the payment is $280 to $350 a week? How are they meant to 'learn to budget' when 80% of their payment is quarantined on a cashless card? That scheme in select areas is literally called the Income Quarantine scheme by Centrelink, despite the retail branding of Indue. How are people meant to find suitable, sustained employment when you are making them starve and unable to afford heating, cooling, specialist medical treatment or decent clothes like all the other job applicants they are competing with?

This

 

[Gough]

The truly disgusting thing is just how much the Coalition hates welfare. Always trying to gut the system, cut the levels of staff administering it, making it more complex, hounding applicants and recipients for documents and proof, making them jump through ever-harder hoops.

I get that being dependent on welfare is highly damaging for the individual, their family and society at large. But the Coalition takes keeping people off welfare and getting people off welfare to the extreme.

How is a Jobseeker recipient meant to 'learn to budget' when the payment is $280 to $350 a week? How are they meant to 'learn to budget' when 80% of their payment is quarantined on a cashless card? That scheme in select areas is literally called the Income Quarantine scheme by Centrelink, despite the retail branding of Indue. How are people meant to find suitable, sustained employment when you are making them starve and unable to afford heating, cooling, specialist medical treatment or decent clothes like all the other job applicants they are competing with?

That sort of cruelty is the cornerstone of Scummo's faith, he's wealthy and successful, therefore he's been smiled on by god and is virtuous. If you aren't successful and wealthy that's because you've somehow angered god and should be punished.

 

[Rotayjay]

They believe only rich people should get welfare

That sort of cruelty is the cornerstone of Scummo's faith, he's wealthy and successful, therefore he's been smiled on by god and is virtuous. If you aren't successful and wealthy that's because you've somehow angered god and should be punished.

Absolutely. Old ideas of 'Protestant work ethic' which have, frankly, destroyed the United States because the whole country operates under the long-discredited notion that poverty is always the individual's fault.

The Coalition loves giving out tax goodies to successful people as a reward for already being successful. In other words, if you're a lifter and not a leaner we'll help you even though you were already lifting.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Be pretty transformative for all of them, including Bill.

It certainly would be for Bill.
The others, not so much.

 

[Over The Post]

It's ironic. These absolute campaigners tried to save taxpayer money by taking as much staff intervention out of debt calculation as possible, and by clawing back welfare payments from Australia's most vulnerable who often cannot defend themselves or prove their innocence.

Two points from this.

Gordon's (the lawyers fighting the class action) were absolute soft ***** to take a settlement. For a lot of people (given that they were in the queue for being paid back anyway) it was never about the money, it was about naming, shaming and publicly destroying the campaigners responsible for it. Instead they'll take a handful of cash in return for no admission of guilt, no admission of liability, and immunity for the perpetrators.

The scheme invented spurious legally-enforced "debts" with no proof, the onus being on the "debtor" to prove it was false. If the legal requirement to retain financial records is five to seven years, exactly how am I meant to go about "proving" falsity by obtaining documents more than ten years old from a company that no longer exists?

Brb generating $$$ invoices to the scumbags for "consultancy" in 2006/2007 that were unpaid and have only just resurfaced. Do you think they'd accept that they have to prove the work wasn't done and the money wasn't owed?

Yes, its over, its in the past. But the mother****ers responsible have, as usual, slid out from under this particular rock and back under another. Thanks, Gordons.