DOCSLIB.ORG

Newstart Survival in a Smoke-Screen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Newstart Survival in a Smoke-Screen NEWSTART SURVIVAL IN A SMOKE-SCREEN A submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Adequacy of Newstart and related payments and alternative mechanisms to determine the level of income support payments in Australia INTRODUCTION In 1999, the Howard Government embarked on what was promised to be a program of major reform of Australia’s welfare system. Two decades on, what we are left with is a mechanism riddled with contradiction and ambiguity that appears to be driven by a philosophy of secrecy and paternalistic-control. Analysis of this situation is difficult because structures and policies lack clear definition, and successive Government Ministers holding welfare-related-portfolios have exhibited a staunch reluctance to explain the logic behind changes they have overseen. Now we are faced with a dilemma that presents us with economic and moral challenges. The moral case for a raise to the rate of Newstart is undeniable, yet the economic imperative to preserve public-confidence in our economy has complicated the matter. This conflict between morality and economic expediency has been a major factor in the formulation of welfare policy for a very long time, and in my opinion, it explains why much of what passes for “reform” has become corrupted. It seems that even this Inquiry into Newstart is not above ambiguity. Reference to “alternative mechanisms” in the title implies that Newstart is considered a mechanism rather than a payment-structure. Once again, confusion reigns, and that is why the first thing I must do in my submission is attempt to provide a benchmark for my discussion of the issue. Where does Newstart stand within the structure of the welfare system? If it is a mechanism, what elements does it contain? … and if it is not a mechanism, what is the mechanism controlling it and how is it structured? Whatever the case, a far more important question is “What is the philosophy that drives the process, and how has it been formulated?” In this submission, I will attempt to answer these questions and describe some of the evolutionary steps that have led to recent, disturbing, developments in the welfare reform process. The current impasse on Newstart is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg. CONTENTS 1: Definitions of Newstart 2: Is the Newstart Mechanism fit for purpose? 3: Definitions of Unemployment 4: A Dishonest System 5: Tweaking the Lie 6: The Propaganda War 7: Crushed by the Australian Dream 8: Community Expectations 9: The Purgatory of Paternalistic Control 10: Cashless Welfare 11: Conclusions 12: Recommendations 14: APPENDIX 1: My Personal Experiences of Newstart 2: Addressing the Terms of Reference 3: Copy of letter from Alan Tudge 4: My response to Tudge Letter DEFINITIONS OF NEWSTART Before this discussion can go any further, we need to understand what the word “Newstart” refers to. If it is a payment regime, then the only real question we should be asking is “does the payment enable the recipient to pay their bills and function in a meaningful way?” If, however, the word “Newstart” refers to something else, the conversation becomes broader and issues beyond mere income-support must be considered. One likely area of concern will be the conditionality of the payment. Given that eligibility to Newstart is governed by an Activities Test, compliance with instructions, and the performance of designated tasks, it might also be described as a “control-mechanism”. Given that the title of this Inquiry defines Newstart as “a mechanism to determine the level of income support payments in Australia”, observers might be forgiven for thinking that Newstart is a benchmark-payment against which all others are measured. This flies in the face of public information provided by the Department of Human Services, which defines Newstart as “the main income support payment while you’re looking for work”. This definition seems to fit with community expectations. If you were to ask average Australians what Newstart was designed to do, many would probably say it is supposed to provide unemployed people with a subsistence-income until they are able to gain employment, and that payment should be restricted to people able to demonstrate their entitlement to assistance. If you were to ask the same people what Newstart should not do, many would probably say it should not provide jobless people with a free ticket to do nothing. The idea of “having a go” is deeply ingrained in our national psyche, so it stands to reason that individuals should be expected to advance themselves at every opportunity, and that the government should provide them with assistance to do so wherever possible. In this context, it can be argued that the privatised job-search-and-training-industry that exists in association with Centrelink is an adjunct of the Newstart mechanism because individual participation in it is driven by the conditional nature of the payment-structure. At the same time, many service-providers in the sector work so exclusively with Newstart recipients that without them they would not have a client-base. A similar relationship can be said to exist between the Newstart mechanism and the many charities and community groups involved in work-for-the-dole and volunteering-for-the-dole programs. This broader context of the Newstart mechanism opens up a much wider conversation than one about the monetary adequacy of an income-support-payment. From where I stand, it seems quite clear that Australia’s welfare system has mutated into something it was not originally designed to be, and that some of the machinery set up to serve the Newstart mechanism exists within a structure of its own, beyond the understanding and control of the Australian community. From this point on in this submission, I will refer to the Newstart mechanism in this broader context IS THE NEWSTART MECHANISM FIT FOR PURPOSE? In determining if Newstart is fit for purpose, we must first understand what it does. In my view, Newstart has three main functions: 1: To provide income-support-payments to able-bodied jobless people of workforce age who are experiencing demonstrable financial difficulty, and to determine their ongoing eligibility to the payment through the performance of specific tasks; 2: To maintain a level of social cohesion through the provision of income-support and associated services, with a view to reducing abject poverty, crime, public-health- issues, and the negative impacts of social isolation; 3: To insulate the Mainstream economy from the local impacts of global industrial change by reducing the cost of supporting industrially-redundant-people and hiding the true extent of unemployment and disadvantage. Within the context of these three functions, the Newstart mechanism operates with the benefit of sleight-of-hand. It exists in its present form on the strength of a single idea: that a loss of public confidence in the economy at a time of industrial uncertainty would lead to economic collapse, and one of the best ways to avoid that is to lie about unemployment. This has an important bearing on the Newstart mechanism because Newstart has been sold to the public as a pathway to employment at a time of extreme industrial change. DEFINITIONS OF UNEMPLOYMENT In 1975, Australia signed the United Nations Lima Declaration. The intention of this document was for nations with advanced economies to help developing nations rise out of poverty by reducing tariff pressures and investing in their infrastructure. This decision provided a green light for cashed-up-westerners to line their pockets by investing money in nations where wages were low and industrial-standards more relaxed than in their own countries. It didn’t take long for the profits to start rolling in, but this also led to the decline of manufacturing in those western nations. As jobs began to dry up, the leaders of those nations began to worry. They needed to find a way to absorb the impact of the global industrial change that was to follow, and one of the places they looked was in fiscal policy. One of the solutions was to shift the definition of full-employment to exclude 5 per cent of the workforce. Given that public-confidence in the economy was a major component of economic activity, it made sense to move the goal-posts to ease the pressure. In theory, the Federal Reserve now had more wriggle-room to act against inflationary forces by tightening monetary policy to slow down the economy when necessary. This process was given the name “NAIRU”, the non-accelerated-inflation-rate-of-unemployment. With NAIRU, economic managers had a safety-valve; a “get-out-of-jail-free-card”, but it came with a sting in the tail. It only worked when unemployment remained within manageable parameters. When it started to exceed those parameters, it became necessary to tweak the numbers. Tony Abbott once explained this in an oblique way during an interview on Channel Nine’s Sunday program when he said: “The government has two fundamental tasks: First, to try and ensure that the economy is as buoyant as possible, and second, to try to ensure that we have structures in place so that, at any given level, unemployment is lower than it would otherwise be, and that’s where policies like mutual obligation and work for the dole are so important”. That desire to keep unemployment low on paper provides a strong incentive to cook the books, yet direct proof of doctoring is hard to come by. In 1999, Treasurer Peter Costello, conceded that the level of joblessness at the time would not drop below 7.5 per cent in the immediate future. It seemed to me that he was confirming earlier criticism from the Council of Small Business Organizations that: "..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Workfare, Neoliberalism and the Welfare State
    Workfare, neoliberalism and the welfare state Towards a historical materialist analysis of Australian workfare Daisy Farnham Honours Thesis Submitted as partial requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours), Political Economy, University of Sydney, 24 October 2013. 1 Supervised by Damien Cahill 2 University of Sydney This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of another degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis. 3 Acknowledgements First of all thanks go to my excellent supervisor Damien, who dedicated hours to providing me with detailed, thoughtful and challenging feedback, which was invaluable in developing my ideas. Thank you to my parents, Trish and Robert, for always encouraging me to write and for teaching me to stand up for the underdog. My wonderful friends, thank you all for your support, encouragement, advice and feedback on my work, particularly Jean, Portia, Claire, Feiyi, Jessie, Emma, Amir, Nay, Amy, Gareth, Dave, Nellie and Erin. A special thank you goes to Freya and Erima, whose company and constant support made days on end in Fisher Library as enjoyable as possible! This thesis is inspired by the political perspective and practice of the members of Solidarity. It is dedicated to all those familiar with the indignity and frustration of life on Centrelink. 4 CONTENTS List of figures....................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • The Coalition's Policy to Create Jobs by Boosting Productivity
    1 The Coalition’s Policy to Create Jobs by Boosting Productivity September 2013 The Coalition’s Policy to Create Jobs by Boosting Productivity 2 Key Points The Coalition will boost national productivity and competitiveness. Investment, job creation, higher real wage growth and better standards of living all depend on productivity and competitiveness. The Coalition believes that productivity and competitiveness are two sides of the same coin – it is competition that provides the incentive for greater productivity, while productivity growth is what allows our firms to remain internationally competitive. The Coalition has a detailed, multi-faceted strategy to boost Australia’s flagging productivity performance. But as the Rudd-Gillard Government has vividly demonstrated, it is not enough to have a plan that looks good on paper. That’s why the Coalition set up its Productivity Priorities Working Group to establish a detailed implementation plan, so that, if elected, a Coalition government can hit the ground running in restoring productivity growth. The Coalition’s Productivity Priorities Working Group has spent the last nine months consulting widely and in detail with businesses, industry representatives and not for profit organisations across Australia. We have sought to understand the practical priority measures that will best enhance national productivity and competitiveness. In response, we have developed a plan of action that will boost the nation’s productivity performance. Our Policy to Create Jobs by Boosting Productivity prioritises 17 policy initiatives that will result in a stronger economy capable of delivering higher real wage growth and job creation. The Coalition’s Policy to Create Jobs by Boosting Productivity sets out the first term steps that a Coalition government will take to drive investment, job creation, higher real wage growth and better standards of living for all Australians.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Social Policy and Society
    Social Policy & Society (2016) 15:2, 159–175 C Cambridge University Press 2015. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:10.1017/S1474746415000147 Rethinking Social Policy and Society Christopher Deeming School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol E-mail: [email protected] Political and administrative processes are leading to collectively undesirable and intolerable societal outcomes in the advanced liberal democracies, as policymakers seek to address social issues in the design and implementation of new social policies that actively govern conduct. Behavioural regulation is the order of the day. For scholars interested in the development of social policy and the idea of a society as a whole, it is timely to begin the revaluation of the very notion of social policy and society beyond the ‘active’ neoliberal policy paradigm. Here we are particularly concerned with the ends and means of the coercive policy instruments and the active ethical issues arising from their use. Keywords: Active social policy, activation, neoliberalism, illiberalism. Introduction This article aims to take stock of and reconceptualise the scale of changes observable in ‘social policy’, especially with respect to labour market policy and income-support schemes implemented since the 1980s. This period of change coincides with the rise of ‘neoliberalism’ (cf. Plant, 2012), which has entailed the problematisation of ‘the welfare state’ in advanced democracies, and not just liberal ones. The arc stretches from Reagan to Thatcher to Blair, with other countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands in the Global North affected along the way (Lodemel and Moreira, 2014), as well as low- and middle-income countries in the Global South (Deeming, 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • GOVERNING HOMELESSNESS: the Discursive and Institutional Construction of Homelessness in Australia
    GOVERNING HOMELESSNESS: The Discursive and Institutional Construction of Homelessness in Australia Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Technology, Sydney 2010 Jane Bullen Certificate of Authorship and Originality I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree nor has it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree except as fully acknowledged within the text. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Jane Bullen May 2010 i Acknowledgement I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis supervisors (in chronological order): Eva Cox, Dr Peter Caldwell, Dr Catherine Robinson and Dr Virginia Watson whose advice, support, comment and encouragement have made it possible for me to undertake this research journey. My thesis started with a series of raw questions that arose from my work experiences related to homelessness policy and services, and the assistance and critique of my supervisors has enabled me to formulate my initial curiosity into this research project. Many thanks go to all those that I have worked with in homelessness services: management, staff and people facing homelessness. It was as a result of our collaborative experiences and the obstacles we found in trying to respond to the devastating problems associated with homelessness that I originally decided to investigate why it seemed that ‘the causes of homelessness had changed’.
    [Show full text]
  • Paternalistic Workfare in Australia and the UK
    Examining changes to welfare policy Paternalistic workfare in Australia and the UK Kemran Mestan A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Swinburne University of Technology 2012 Abstract Over the last two decades across most developed nations, governments have made substantial changes to welfare policy. Although welfare policy refers to many initiatives by governments to protect and promote the well-being of their populace, those whose well-being depends most on such initiatives are the most vulnerable to policy changes. This thesis examines changes in welfare policy targeted at one such group: people of working age receiving welfare payments. The most prominent change in respect of this group is placing work-related conditions on the receipt of welfare payments, which has been described as ‘workfare’. There are various objectives of workfare, with diverse means to achieve them. A particular objective is to promote people’s interests, with compulsion applied as a means to do so. This could be described as a paternalistic characteristic of workfare. This thesis examines and assesses paternalistic workfare in two ways. First it examines empirically changes in welfare policy in Australia and the UK between 1996 and 2011, through detailed analysis of policy documents supplemented by interviews with policy makers. This investigation found that welfare paternalism is a significant characteristic of workfare policies in both countries. Second, it assesses the legitimacy of paternalistic workfare by considering the likelihood that it promotes the well-being of those subject to the policies, as well as if it is fair. Conditions conducive to promoting well-being were identified, and principles of legitimate paternalistic workfare induced, which were then applied to the two cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Net to Poverty Trap? the Twentieth-Century Origins of Australia's Uneven Social Security System
    WORKING PAPER Safety net to poverty trap? The twentieth-century origins of Australia’s uneven social security system Danielle Thornton, Dina Bowman and Shelley Mallett RESEARCH & POLICYCENTRE Work and economic security September 2020 The Brotherhood of St Laurence is a non-government, community-based organisation concerned with social justice. Based in Melbourne, but with programs and services throughout Australia, the Brotherhood is working for a better deal for disadvantaged people. It undertakes research, service development and delivery, and advocacy, with the objective of addressing unmet needs and translating learning into new policies, programs and practices for implementation by government and others. For more information visit <www.bsl.org.au>. Danielle Thornton is a Senior Research Fellow, Dina Bowman a Principal Research Fellow and Shelley Mallett the Director of Brotherhood’s Research and Policy Centre. Published by Brotherhood of St Laurence 67 Brunswick Street Fitzroy, Victoria 3065 Australia ABN 24 603 467 024 T (03) 9483 1183 www.bsl.org.au Suggested citation: Thornton, D, Bowman, D & Mallett, S 2020, Safety net to poverty trap? The twentieth-century origins of Australia’s uneven social security system, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Fitzroy, Vic. © Brotherhood of St Laurence 2020 Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part of this paper may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Enquiries
    [Show full text]
  • 10CEDA's Top 10 Speeches
    National South Australia and the Level 13, 440 Collins Street Northern Territory Melbourne VIC 3000 Level 5 GPO Box 2117 2 Ebenezer Place Melbourne VIC 3001 Adelaide SA 5000 Telephone 03 9662 3544 Telephone 08 8211 7222 Email [email protected] Email [email protected] CEDA’ New South Wales Victoria and Tasmania and the ACT Level 13 S Level 14 440 Collins Street TO The John Hunter Building Melbourne VIC 3000 P 9 Hunter Street GPO Box 2117 10 S Sydney NSW 2000 Melbourne VIC 3001 GPO Box 2100 Telephone 03 9662 3544 PEEC Sydney NSW 2001 Email [email protected] H Telephone 02 9299 7022 ES Email [email protected] THE CEDA STAGE PRIME MINISTERS ON Western Australia Level 5 Queensland 105 St Georges Terrace Level 17, 300 Adelaide Street Perth WA 6000 Brisbane QLD 4000 PO Box 5631 GPO Box 2900 St Georges Tce Brisbane QLD 4001 Perth WA 6831 Telephone 07 3229 9955 Telephone 08 9226 4799 Email [email protected] Email [email protected] 10CEDA’s Top 10 Speeches Prime Ministers on the CEDA stage A collection of speeches highlighting CEDA’s engagement with Australia’s Prime Ministers over more than 40 years. CEDA’s Top 10 Speeches: Prime Ministers on the CEDA stage A collection of speeches highlighting CEDA’s engagement with Australia’s Prime Ministers over more than 40 years. About this publication CEDA’s Top 10 Speeches: Prime Ministers on the CEDA stage © CEDA 2018 ISBN: 0 85801 325 8 The views expressed in this document are those of the authors, and should not be attributed to CEDA.
    [Show full text]
  • New Public Management and the Welfare-To-Work Market in Australia
    False economy: New Public Management and the welfare-to-work market in Australia Susan Joy Olney ORCID ID 0000-0003-3814-8855 Doctor of Philosophy AUGUST 2016 School of Social and Political Sciences Faculty of Arts University of Melbourne Thesis submitted in total fulfilment of the degree 1 This page is intentionally left blank 2 Abstract In 1994 the Australian Government opened case management services for the long-term unemployed to the market, laying the foundation for its now fully privatised employment services system. The system was a pioneering exemplar of New Public Management and it is widely hailed as a successful model of outsourced service delivery. However this thesis argues that the system’s measures of success, focused on aggregate employment outcomes and service delivery costs, mask the adverse impact of its marketisation on ‘hard to place’ jobseekers and ignore the flow-on economic and social costs of their persistent unemployment. Going beyond the existing literature and drawing together multiple sources of data, this thesis presents an in-depth analysis of the context, process and effects of providing employment assistance to people facing multiple and significant barriers to work in Australia. Its findings reveal the complex and multi-disciplinary nature of interventions encompassed in activating those jobseekers; the challenges of coordinating those interventions in contestable funding environments and thin markets; issues in assessment of those jobseekers’ barriers to work and how they are streamed for employment assistance; and individualisation of the problem of long-term unemployment. The findings also reveal that, counter to predictions and despite calibrated incentives, the prospects of the long-term unemployed in Australia moving from welfare to sustainable work have not significantly improved through two decades of radical institutional change underpinned by market-based instruments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Coalition's Economic Growth Plan for Tasmania
    1 Our Plan Real Solutions for all Australians The direction, values and policy priorities of the next Coalition Government. The Coalition’s Economic Growth Plan for Tasmania August 2013 Plan Our Real Solutions for all Australians The direction, values and policy priorities of the next Coalition Government. The Coalition’s Economic Growth Plan for Tasmania 2 Key Points The Coalition believes the economic course of Tasmania can be reset to one of growth, jobs and rising living standards. Tasmania has the lowest gross state product per capita in Australia, the nation‟s highest unemployment rate, the nation‟s lowest life expectancy, the highest standardised death rate due to suicide, the lowest proportion of adults in the nation who have attained a year 12 qualification, one of the nation‟s lowest retention rates to year 12 and the highest proportion of people without superannuation coverage. Under the Rudd-Gillard Government there have been no additional new jobs created in Tasmania – in fact, almost one in ten full time jobs have been lost. Tasmania deserves a better future based on a stronger, more competitive economy. The Coalition believes a comprehensive package of policy measures aimed at enhancing Tasmania‟s competitiveness and investment prospects is necessary to boost employment, real wage growth and opportunities for individuals, families and businesses. There is no avoiding the fact that Tasmania must be more competitive and it must have much greater incentives for private sector investment, innovation and jobs growth. We will not entertain proposals that disadvantage Tasmania and we will not change Tasmania‟s goods and services tax (GST) distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPERIMENTS in SELF-DETERMINATION Histories of the Outstation Movement in Australia
    EXPERIMENTS IN SELF-DETERMINATION Histories of the outstation movement in Australia EXPERIMENTS IN SELF-DETERMINATION Histories of the outstation movement in Australia Edited by Nicolas Peterson and Fred Myers MONOGRAPHS IN ANTHROPOLOGY SERIES Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Experiments in self-determination : histories of the outstation movement in Australia / editors: Nicolas Peterson, Fred Myers. ISBN: 9781925022896 (paperback) 9781925022902 (ebook) Subjects: Community life. Community organization. Aboriginal Australians--Social conditions--20th century. Aboriginal Australians--Social life and customs--20th century. Other Creators/Contributors: Peterson, Nicolas, 1941- editor. Myers, Fred R., 1948- editor. Dewey Number: 305.89915 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press This edition © 2016 ANU Press Contents List of maps . vii List of figures . ix List of tables . xi Preface and acknowledgements . xiii 1 . The origins and history of outstations as Aboriginal life projects . 1 Fred Myers and Nicolas Peterson History and memory 2 . From Coombes to Coombs: Reflections on the Pitjantjatjara outstation movement . 25 Bill Edwards 3 . Returning to country: The Docker River project . 47 Jeremy Long 4 . ‘Shifting’: The Western Arrernte’s outstation movement . 61 Diane Austin-Broos Western Desert complexities 5 . History, memory and the politics of self-determination at an early outstation .
    [Show full text]
  • HC Coombs Policy Forum a Review of Australian Government Labour
    HC COOMBS POLICY FORUM A review of Australian government labour market policies since 1945 Natalie Cooper A review of Australian government labour market policies since 1945 Natalie Cooper WORKING PAPER HC Coombs Policy Forum The Australian National University The HC Coombs Policy Forum, The Australian National University policy think tank, is undertaking an integrated series of forward-looking reports on key policy challenges facing Australia. The Visioning Australia’s Future reports are major multidisciplinary horizon- scanning exercises designed to inform policy-making and public debate over the coming years. The series will draw on Australian National University public policy research, bring together current knowledge on key issues and focus in particular on Government needs and priorities. The initial priorities for this research are an analysis of the national balance sheet and its implications for economic change over time; a look at the future of regional Australia; and an examination of labour force participation policies, with a focus on new ideas and policy solutions. This working paper focuses on maximising participation in the labour force. For further information on the HC Coombs Policy Forum, go to: http://publicpolicy.anu.edu.au/coombs/ The author would like to thank Jessie Borthwick for her valuable assistance and comments on the paper. ©The Australian National University, 2011 Copyright of material contained in this publication is held by The Australian National University. CONTENTS About this paper 2 Why do we need
    [Show full text]
  • Unemployment in Australia: the Coming Anarchy
    Unemployment in Australia: The Coming Anarchy Written: August 2019 1 Preface We live in an era of great uncertainty. Even the most casual observer can appreciate dramatic changes have taken place in the Australian society over the past 30 years. For those of my generation, the so called ‘baby boomers’ much of the social and financial changes that have taken place since our birth have been little short of cataclysmic. It is deeply disturbing that the very values we, as a nation have historically prided ourselves on- ‘equality,’ ‘mateship’ and the ‘fair go’ are now a pale memory of how we used to be. Some still cling to such values, but for most, and particularly those of the younger generation, they have now become part of the great Australian myth. One of the most central causes of growing inequity in Australia over the past thirty years has been workforce displacement. Deeply concerning, is the role played by successive Australian governments via Centrelink and the privatised employment service system, now called Jobactive, in promulgating inequity. This knowledge is based on our family’s experience of un/underemployment, networking of others experiences, as well as text research. It is glaringly apparent that this country is now at a crossroads and faces an existential crisis in dealing with the growing, chronic problem of un/underemployment which has been festering for several decades. Clearly a massive cultural shift is required, both by politicians and the wider Australian society. The current Centrelink welfare system is anachronistic, punitive and wasteful. Its replacement with a streamlined, cost effective and incentivised system of a guaranteed minimum income, is now the only alternative to stemming an impending social collapse, caused by ballooning un/underemployment in a rapidly changing digital age.
    [Show full text]