Welcome Visitor: Login to the siteJoin the site


Essay By: Philip Roberts

The title says it all. The Australian Government is guilty of Gross Human Rights Violations against the unemployed and other pensioners! I am actually an invalid unable to get work, but am classed as unemployed since theoretically, despite severe arthritis of the spine, I could work 15 hours per week. This means I was robbed of the recent pension bonus of $1400 per person supposedly handed out by the federal government. Every pensioner, except those on unemployment relief, got this bonus. Since 20% of people on unemployment are actually invalids, this is gross inhumanity by the Australian Government! Interestingly, no newspaper in Australia would publish my letters of complaint against this barbaric behaviour by the federal government!

Submitted:Dec 24, 2010    Reads: 52    Comments: 0    Likes: 0   


This manifesto aims to set out ways to achieve full employment in under a decade! Although this might seem a huge (perhaps even impossible) task, I believe it is possible. If only the government is prepared to get over its obsession with thinking boss's rights are more important than worker's rights. And also their obsession with fixing inflation, no matter how high an unemployment figure we get.
There are eleven (11) methods that I would employ:
Both of these true-life examples occurred around late 1979 or early 1980 when I was unemployed for four or five months. This was in the days of the evil C.E.S. [which the way it treated the unemployed should more accurately have been called the F.E.S. - Fascist Employment Service!].
However, I am sure that they both still go on today with CentreLink. In fact, I did have the experience early in 2010 with MatchWorks where I was rejected for a job by Yooralla (the Spastic Society) because the job meant standing up all day. I accepted their reasoning without argument, since with my severe arthritis, especially in the spine and knees, it is all I can do to get out of bed on colder mornings without falling flat on my face, let alone standing up all day.
Yet, Steve Christie, of MatchWorks, fought Yooralla's ruling, trying to force them to employ me against their will. Thank the Lord he failed in the end. I certainly want and financially need permanent part-time work, but I could never have survived standing up all day, even just two days every week.
Here are the two 1979 and 1980 examples:
Firstly, I was asked at that time by a C.E.S. officer why I had left the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), in September 1975 [in between I had worked as a labourer for my father, a job I really did not have the strength to do]. I explained that the work was unbearable, especially due to a monstrous supervisor named Terry Hewitt, who was what I call a backyard fuehrer.
The C.E.S. officer then demanded to know why I had not applied for transfers or promotions out of there to other sections. I explained that [see point 7) below about overtime being used to allow firms to survive working permanently massively under staffed] it was impossible for me to get transferred or promoted out of there. The reason being that the Australian Federal Government requires your supervisor to sign a "release form" saying that they can spare you from their section before you can move to a new section. By 1975 every ATO department was already grossly short staffed and every manager permanently had requests in for extra staff. Ergo, no manager would ever dare sign a release form saying that you could be spared, because that implied that they had enough staff and all of their future pleas for adequate staffing would be ignored.
To my astonishment the C.E.S. officer chucked a major psycho-fit accusing me of lying, saying that there had never been a requirement in the Australian Federal Government for your manager to sign a release form before you could be promoted or transferred to another section.
I could not believe the gall of this lying bastard! If you check the front pages of the Australian Gazette [where federal government positions are advertised] to this day, 2010, you will find that that requirement is still clearly stated in the introductory pages. You still, in 2010, cannot get promoted or transferred to a new federal government department without your current supervisor signing a form stating that he or she can spare you! This has ALWAYS been the case with the Australian Federal Government!
Secondly, in early 1980 I had just turned twenty-three (23), at that time an excellent job came up, that seemed just right for me. Except that the employers stipulated that you had to be at least twenty-five [something which the Equal Opportunity Act no longer allows them to do].
To my horror a C.E.S. officer told me to lie and say that I was twenty-five, but had lost my birth certificate to prove it [I have mentioned this in one of my Chris Smith stories], but to get them to ring through to the C.E.S. for confirmation of my age. Then the C.E.S. [I would have had to hope] would lie and say that they had seen my birth certificate and could affirm that I was twenty-five, however, they did not have a copy of my birth certificate to send to the employer.
Frankly, I was horrified by this evil suggestion. At first I just sat there staring at the officer, too shocked to say a word. Finally, I got the voice to refuse this insidious suggestion, so that the officer put in a report on me, lying further, by saying that I was not seriously looking for work. Fortunately before they had time to unfairly stop my payments [around $49.95 per week in those day] I found employment with Community Services Victoria.
But the C.E.S. or CentreLink have no right to lie to get you employment and more importantly they have no right to order you to lie and then victimise you because you are an honest person who will not lie even when you are desperate for employment.
The current situation where the government does not give a damn if the unemployed are unable to pay their rent and have to move out into the street is immoral and totally unacceptable. [Governments do not care about the problem of street people in this country, because it saves them money, since in Australia you cannot get a pension without having a fixed address - so the situation that is prevalent in America where people live in ancient cars and still draw full pensions cannot occur in Australia.]
Since keeping people living inside is more important than getting them a job, this must be the first and foremost concern of this new super department.
Getting people the education necessary to get a job is then the next most important thing. In Australia if you are doing a work-for-the-dole project that cannot possibly lead to you getting full-time employment, job agencies like YesWest and MatchWorks are allowed to give you daily, weekly or monthly Met tickets to help you with your transport costs. However, insanely, if you are doing a proper university course that really could get you a job, they are not allowed to help with your transport costs.
When doing a work-for-the-dole project in early 2006 Damien at YesWest was able to give me Met tickets. In theory the project was to design a website for Wyndham City Council. In reality the so-called teacher, Chris Payne, would log on to his PC at 9:00 AM and play computer games until 5:00 PM, leaving us to sink or swim on our own. Needless to say, WyndhamCity Council did not get a web page out of this project. But at least the project did not cost me anything since I was given free Met tickets to cover my travelling expenses throughout the eighteen weeks (or whatever it was) of the project.
On the other hand, while attempting an IT course at Victoria University (Vic. Uni.) from mid 2006 till mid 2008, I was down to just four subjects left to pass, but had to quit because my rent had just gone up, so that I could no longer afford the $50 a month that a monthly concession Met Ticket cost. And YesWest was not allowed to give me Met tickets for a proper university course.
Of course, I had failed all four subjects in my forth term due to the fact that YesWest had refused to pay for a new lens in my distance glasses when I dropped them, so that for the first six weeks of term I had to get by with reading glasses. Reading glasses are, of course, designed to read a book up close, not to read from a white-board metres away, so I was unable to keep up with what was going on in class for the first six weeks.
This also put me in great danger whenever I crossed the street or got on or off a bus, since with my reading glasses on I had zero depth perception. I could see things, but if they were more than half a metre from my face I could not really tell where they were.
In the end my sister, Denise, without whose help I would have been living in the streets years ago, kindly gave me the $338 necessary for a dense glass lens. Denise is only a factory worker, so this is a lot of money for her. But unlike the sadists at CentreLink and YesWest, Denise is a very kind, caring person who was not prepared to let me risk my life any longer (since with reading glasses on, when I crossed the road I could not tell if an approaching car was fifty metres away, or about to hit me).
They also need to drop employers who claim their projects might lead to paying work, but never actually provide any paying work for people who have done work-for-the-dole projects for them.
This was a problem in late 2005 when I attempted an aged care course with Vic. Uni. in Werribee. I topped the class on the written projects in the first ten weeks in class [being a good if struggling writer gave me an unfair advantage over the other students when it came to doing research and writing reports or accounts]. But when we went on placement two major problems occurred:
Firstly, Winthringham in North Williamstown treats students on placement as slaves giving them all the dirty, mucky jobs. Also they operated a skeleton staff so that just three aged-care workers look after sixty-three residents per shift. [Except for night shift when there is one aged-care worker on duty and a second one sleeping over in case an emergency arises -- I do not know if they are paid anything for sleeping over if not needed, but it is compulsory - fortunately, however, students on placement only have to do day shift and afternoon shift.]
Also Winthringham do not obey state or federal government safety laws in regard to lifting, et cetera. By both Victorian and Australian Government law there is a no manual lifting policy in age-care homes in this country. That means that all such establishments have to have heavy lifting devices to lift residents who have fallen out of bed, fallen in the shower, et cetera. However, in reality Winthringham is such a big establishment that if someone falls in a unit at either end of the facility [each unit is the size of a small one-bedroom flat, so with sixty-three of them joined to a series of corridors the facility is immense!], with the lifting machines kept in a storeroom in the middle of the facility, it could mean a ten to fifteen minute delay to go get the lifting machine and return with it.
Therefore, to save time Winthringham flagrantly disregards the law and uses the old heave-ho method. One worker grabs the resident by the feet, a second grabs him or her by the arms, and on the count of three they heave the resident back up onto their bed. This is not only illegal by both state and federal law, but also very traumatic for the aged person since you are treating them like a sack of potatoes. Also there is the potential to throw out your back, doing potentially permanent damage. In which case you are not covered by worker's compensation, or any form of work cover, because you have damaged your back performing a criminal act. So, unless you have witnesses to prove that your supervisor ordered you to break state and federal law, you could find yourself permanently out of work, with no possibility of compensation either.
Secondly, they made it plain to me in week one, that although they are happy to have the services of three or four unpaid students per half year, they absolutely never keep on any of the placement students, preferring to hire people with at least a couple of years of experience in age-care work.
This is the sort of parasitic establishment that should be cut from not only Vic. Uni. placement, but also from any form of government work-for-the-dole projects.
This is a sore point with me since my 2nd employment agency MatchWorks, who I initially thought were more caring and competent than YesWest, have now indicated that they want me to start unpaid volunteer work. Although, since I am forced to do this it is not really volunteer.
I have at least two problems with non-voluntary volunteer work:
Firstly, it suggests to me that Steve Christie and MatchWorks have given up on me after two years and do not believe that I am employable. In fact they may be right because I have severe arthritis of the spine aggravated by two bad falls: the first onto bitumen in late 1988, the second onto concrete on the last day of 2000. In fact I should be on the Invalid Pension. But former Prime Minister John Howard halved the requirement for employment benefits from having to be able to work at least thirty-hours per week to having to be able to work at least fifteen-hours per week. So, now up to half of the invalids in this country are on the dole (a.k.a. NewStart, a.k.a. unemployment benefits). You might say that this is good, since it helps invalids to get back into the workforce if at all possible. However, that was not the reason for the change, it was because the Dole is significantly less than the Invalid Pension, so it was just a sleazy way to save money by ripping off people with disabilities.
Secondly, as someone living in abject poverty due to the brutal sadism of Canberra, CentreLink, and MatchWorks, there is the potential that I will have to do non-voluntary volunteer work to help others who are actually far better off than I am!
As I mentioned above the reason that John Howard halved the amount of work you are able to do to be on the Dole instead of the Invalid Pension, is because the pensions are greatly different in amount. So for fairness [not only fairness to the unemployed and invalids being falsely called unemployed, but for fairness to all pensioners] clearly all pensions in this country have to be standardised, so that a single person on any pension gets a set amount, a couple on any pension (or pensions) get a different set amount, and child support for any pension will also be at a set amount per child. I suggest for a single person without dependants, standardising all Australia pensions at $325 per week. Which is approximate $100 a week more than the unemployed are receiving at the moment. For those wondering how Australia could afford to pay this extra amount, check out my Model for a Democratic Republic [on Triond] in which I explained how we should slash the number of Aussie politicians, plus also slash their outrageously high salaries. Also see my Manifesto on a Fairer Australian Taxation System [not yet on Triond] in which I will explain how to revolutionise the tax system, with particular emphasis on forcing the rich fascist elite and big business to pay a fair level of taxation - for the first time in Australian history.
As it is, the pension you are on can decide whether you can afford to even eat. As an invalid wrongly upon unemployment benefits, for over a year I would not have been able to eat Tea [supper for Americans] except for the charity of my church, CitiGATE and in particular Pastor Michael Sim and his wife, Janet, who give me most of the food for my lunches and Tea now; plus I receive up to four food items per week from the operators of a Video Ezy store in Barkly Street, West Footscray, who kindly give away part of their profits to help the poor. Without Video Ezy and CitiGATEChurch, I would have been down to bread and water for a year now, due to the brutal sadism of CentreLink and the bastards in Canberra who literally do not care if the unemployed live or die!
Another scam [particularly over the last decade when real estate agents and landlords have been guilty in this country of grand usury over rental prices - which have risen one-hundred-and-fifty Percent in ten years in Australia, at a time of extremely low inflation in this country] that has to be abolished, is the sick dirty joke nature of rental assistance that pensioners get in Australia.
The cheapest you can rent a small villa unit or flat for in this country is now about $220 per week. But the maximum rental assistance for any pension is about $240 per month, or $55 per week. You have not been able to rent any kind of dwelling for $55 per week in Australia since the late 1970s. So, the sick, dirty joke of so-called rental assistance is a full thirty years out of date.
Either the federal government needs to immediately abolish the upper limit to rental assistance [to get it at all you must get a rental certificate signed by your landlord every six months, so that there is no way to scam the government over how much you are paying] and simply pay you whatever your rent is. At the moment the sick, dirty joke of rent assistance means that you can be paying as much as eighty Percent of your pension on your rent. Most unemployed in this country have as little as $50 to $60 per week to live on after paying their rent. And to get the Dole at all you must have a phone so that you can apply for jobs. The cheapest monthly phone rental in Australia is about $25 per month. So, the government kindly provides you with phone rental assistance of $23 per quarter. Less than a third what you actually need.
The second alternative is for the state and federal government to move against estate agents or landlords guilty of grand usury. To force down rents by up to fifty Percent, and then freeze rents for a period of ninety-nine years. [Until the 1970s Australia did have sensible rent controls, just as most developed countries still have.] This would be easy to enforce since estate agents have to provide you with a free rental rights book whenever you ask for it. So the government just needs to add a phone number for all renters to use whenever their estate agent or landlord tries to illegally raise their rent.
Also introducing harsh penalties, including length gaol sentences, for estate agents or landlords who try to use bully tactics to stop renters from informing on them, and this system could be made to work seamlessly.
There is a big problem in this country with overtime, namely that many companies operate permanently up to fifty Percent short staffed, but manage to keep up to date by having workers do enforced overtime.
In the 1980s I knew a bloke, Huey Thompson, who worked for Holden [the Australian version of General Motors]. Huey permanently worked an eighty-hour week: forty hours of his ordinary shift, plus forty hours of compulsory overtime. I remember my brother telling him, "You lucky devil earning all that overtime money." Quite correctly Huey replied, "What's the point, I've got no time to spend it. And no time to spend with my wife and daughter."
In the early 1990s when I worked for the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for the second time, they had a policy of working forty to fifty Percent short staffed permanently. Then whenever they got so far behind that they were getting too many irate phone calls from people awaiting tax returns, they would have an overtime working-bee. Overtime, which I refused to do, since I regarded it as scabbing against the unemployed.
From time to time some Captain Queeg type from Canberra would come down to Melbourne to ask us how we could speed up the work process so that we could stop getting behind and stop having to work overtime working-bees. Most ATO staff offered no solution, since they were happy to exploit the unemployed and get the regular overtime payments.
I was the only one who tried to tell the Queegs the obvious, that we cannot stay up to date with fifty Percent of the staff levels that we need. However, they would not listen to this bleeding obvious fact and would quickly cut me off. As far as the Queegs in Canberra were concerned we not only were not under staffed, but we were actually over staffed. In fact from late 1990 the ATO stopped promotions to encourage people to leave and seek employment elsewhere [to my knowledge this promotion freeze continues to this day]. And in 1990 they started a policy of permanently down staffing ten Percent per year.
With the tax office already fifty Percent short staffed before this down staffing levy started, I do not know how the ATO continues to function to this day. In 1990 there was minimal computerisation in the ATO, so it is possible that full computerisation [where every worker has a separate PC terminal] has allowed them to achieve the then (in 1990) impossibility of getting each employee to do two people's work.
This problem of companies working permanently massively short staffed and making up the difference with overtime [to keep wages low by keeping unemployment high and to neuter the unions], is not just a local problem. For the last thirty years or more it has been a big problem worldwide.
As far back as the 1990s it became such a massive problem in France, that to try to discourage people from working overtime, the French government altered the taxation system so that overtime work attracted a much higher tax level (for any wage bracket) than ordinary wages. Despite what many Australians think, that is not the case in this country. In Australia when you get paid for overtime they tax you as though that is your permanent wage level, so you pay far too much tax when you get paid you overtime money. Then when you put in your tax return, you get a massive refund, because of paying too much tax originally.
To my knowledge the French method has not been as effective as one would have hoped, although congratulations to the French Government for caring enough about this abuse by big business to at least try to stop it.
In Australia, despite being a basically democratic country, we sometimes have fascist governments for short periods of time, usually at state level rather than federal. In Victoria Jeff Kennett was our last fascist state premier.
Kennett quickly recognised that high unemployment was being caused by excessive overtime in business and set out to fix the problem. But being a fascist, he adopted the insane philosophy that overtime was a conspiracy against the bosses by the greedy workers and ruthless unions.
Therefore, instead of doing anything useful, Kennett adopted the fascist policy of outlawing overtime rates. This meant that businesses still had to pay workers for doing overtime, but only at their normal salary rate. Needless to say unemployment in Victoria soared under the Kennett regime as bosses started to abuse this fascist law and down staffed even further, forcing existing workers to work even greater overtime hours, but without enough pay to make it worthwhile.
So, what is the answer to the nation-wide conspiracy by big business, the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party Coalition? Well, very simple:
The Australian High Court needs to prove that it is not part of this nation-wide conspiracy by banning overtime entirely. Except for family members of small family businesses employing twelve people or less. This way small corner stores, milk bars, fish-and-chip shops; et cetera will not be punished for the evil actions of big business.
This way big businesses and state and federal government departments that have been working permanently fifty Percent short staffed for decades will then have two choices: staff up to the proper levels, thereby helping to cut unemployment to a reasonable level [a permanent figure of two Percent or less, as opposed to the five Percent plus Australia has had for over forty years!]. Or else if they are too stubborn to employ enough workers to function without massive overtime, then they can simply go bust, leaving an opportunity for a fairer employer to buy their business and keep it running fully staffed.
Needless to say severe tax penalties would have to be introduced for companies who illegally have staff working overtime or simply refuse to fully staff up. [I will go into more details about the necessary tax penalties in my Manifesto on Taxation.]
Needless to say these tax penalties would not apply to small businesses, or would be much lesser, since small business has always been the backbone of employment in Australia, not big business as you might expect.
One other thing that needs to be considered in a near-complete overtime ban, is seasonal firms. Firms that mainly produce goods for Christmas or Easter in particular. Should these firms be excluded from the proposed overtime ban? No, but rather the law needs to be strengthened to allow them to take on temporary extra workers for two- to six-months every year, without the unions being able to force them to employ the extra staff full-time.
This is an iffy one since the Greens and other head-in-the-air parties believe Australia should accept millions of immigrants, blissfully ignoring two important facts: Firstly, that Australia has had a national drought since the early 1990s so that our reservoirs are thirty to forty Percent full at best. Secondly, unlike most continents, eighty Percent of mainland Australia is uninhabitable desert land. Much of it true red-sand desert [the other three types -- yellow sand desert, brown dirt desert, and grey stone deserts -- do not count as real deserts, even though you can still die of dehydration easily enough if lost in them].
Also an issue that needs to be considered is with big business, the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition conspiring together keep unemployment over five Percent for over forty years in this country, what effect on unemployment will immigration [legal or illegal] have on unemployment levels.
I believe that the migration intake should be index-linked to unemployment as follows:
When unemployment is five Percent upwards migrant intake should be zero [with some allowance, however, for genuine refugees, as opposed to boat people].
When unemployment is four Percent to five Percent migrant intake should be up to 10,000 per year.
When unemployment is three Percent to four Percent migrant intake should be up to 20,000 per year.
When unemployment is two Percent to three Percent migrant intake should be up to 30,000 per year.
When unemployment is one Percent to two Percent migrant intake should be up to 40,000 per year.
When unemployment is below one Percent migrant intake should be up to 50,000 per year.
There is a legend that somehow high immigration keeps down unemployment, or even creates jobs, thus reducing unemployment. This legend is unproven, and obviously assumes that people of one ethnic background having started a business in this country will employ Aussies from other ethnic backgrounds. I can only assume supporters of this legend have never seen inside all-Greek factories [see my story "Chris Smith Meets the Mangler" on Triond, for a true account of how I was treated in the late 1970s by a Greek foreman, Georgio, at the Spotswood company AGM, because I am not of Greek origin!], all-Chinese factories, all-Polish factories, etc. which proliferate throughout Melbourne's working class suburbs.
When you see a single factory employing 1,500 people, all immigrants from the same country, it seems easier to believe that immigrant employers are only interested in creating jobs for their own friends and family back home. Frankly I cannot fathom how this creates jobs for those already in this country?
In future all boat people should be repatriated back to their own country immediately. With no legal right to appeal the decision. Certainly it is wrong to keep illegal immigrants in what are little better than concentration camps, as both the Australian Labor Party and Liberal-National Coalition have done over the last decade or more.
It is interesting to note that international organisations, such as Amnesty International, malign Australia as racist because we do not want thousands of boat people illegally invading our shores each year. Yet they have no objection to Singapore giving boat people thousands of litres of petrol for their boats and giving them enough food to continue on to Australia, because the Singaporeans do not want boat people stopping in Singapore!
Please note, however, that Australia has had a national unemployment level of five Percent or higher since 1970!
Both major parties have been in cahoots with big business to keep unemployment high, keep wages low, and neuter the unions for forty years now!
Australia (so I was told at University in 1980) was the first country in the world to mention the union movement in its federal constitution and to guarantee all unions the right to strike for higher pay or better working conditions for their own members.
Of course, in the 1950s to 1990s the unions grossly abused this right becoming corrupt as hell. [But I will go into more detail about this in my Manifesto Regarding Fascism in Australia.]
Finally the Australian Federal Government had to try to regulate the unions more. But this in turn went too far:
Starting with the Keating Government virtually outlawing unions being allowed to strike with his evil workplace agreements, which are little more than a return to serfdom [I will go into more about this in my Manifesto Regarding Fascism in Australia.]
Almost as bad as Paul Keating's return to serfdom, were John Howard's evil Industrial Relation (IR) Laws. The gist of these was that if a company employed less than a hundred people, they could sack any employee at will without them being able to be sued for unfair dismissal. [I will go into a lot more detail on the evil IR Laws in my Manifesto Regarding Fascism in Australia!]
Australia must drop out of the Gatt Accord.
For those who do not know, the Gatt Accord is an agreement to abolish restrictions on imports into your country, therefore destroying the manufacturing and produce industries in this country. Which is why I call it the "Open Gate Policy". Effectively the government has stood by like cretins holding the gate open while horse after horse has bolted!
According to Prime Minister Bob Hawke when he signed the Gatt Accord this would introduce a "level playing field" allowing Australians to specialise in doing whatever the hell we do best. Within months of signing this destructive legislation Bob Hawke was appearing on TV in advertisements, making a complete fool of himself by virtually begging Australians to buy Australian, almost crying on air as he did so. He had realised the massive cock-up that he had made, but was not man enough to admit it and drop out of the Gatt Accord.
The Gatt Accord has at least two overwhelming flaws built in that combine to stop if from ever being fair or creating a level playing field. Firstly, countries like the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany; et cetera have abused it by dumping their leftover produce in Australia, thereby selling at unnaturally low prices, which Australian made goods cannot compete with. Secondly, countries like China, Hong Kong, Korea, Mexico; et cetera can make a complete mockery of the level playing field by using child slave labour to keep their prices unnaturally low. This explains both their low prices and why products made in these countries are worthless crap that quickly falls apart. You cannot expect children [some too young to start primary school - for Americans take this as Elementary School] to be able to manufacture anything to a high standard.
This also creates a moral dilemma, since by honouring the Gatt Accord we are grossly violating treaties we have signed with the United Nations to oppose child slave labour. The Gatt Accord flagrantly, and undeniably promotes child slave labour.
Dropping out of the Gatt Accord would mean banning the import into this country of all goods, which could be made in Australia. This might cause high inflation for a while. But better that than five Percent plus unemployment.
If necessary Australia should not honour international copyright, if this is a problem in regard to making goods in Australia.
Work-for-the-dole should mean that all harassment of the unemployed must end. And the unemployed should not have to prove that they are looking for any other work, since it would no longer be any business of the government what they are doing when not working-for-the-dole.
The unemployed should not have to send in any forms to the CentreLink or their job employment agency.
The unemployed should not have to call into CentreLink or their job employment agency.
CentreLink or job employment agencies should not send Gestapo agents around knocking on their door at all hours of the day and night to see if you are really job hunting. And of course, work-for-the-dole should have to be at least at the minimum wage [as of today, 29 August 2010, in Australia the minimum adult wage allowed by law is $14.30 an hour.]
Allowing that unemployment relief for a single person is around $225 per week in this country, the maximum amount of work allowable for work-for-the-dole would be fifteen point seven-three hours a week. However this could drop rapidly depending upon the work. IT work would normally pay at least $25 per hour in this country, so to design a website for WyndhamCity Council, for instance, the maximum amount of work would be nine hours per week. In fairness when I was doing the WyndhamCity project I was only required to work eight hours a week. However, I was receiving less then and still had to job hunt, report to YesWest, fill in forms and take them into CentreLink.
So, to summarise my suggestions to slash unemployment in this country [as well as try to abolish the poor having to live in the streets while CentreLink staff laugh in their faces at their pleas for help] are:
1) Honest people who are unemployed must no longer be pressured by CentreLink or employment agencies to lie to potential employers to get employment. Although it would also help if employers could get some nous and realise that with five Percent plus unemployment, most people applying for employment with them just want any job that they can get. It is very frustrating when out of desperation to get employment you apply for a monstrously horrid job and they ask you: "Why do you really want this job?" What the hell are you supposed to say then?
2) The setting up a new super Department of Housing, Education, and Employment;
3) Abolishing work-for-the-dole projects that cannot possibly lead to paying work;
4) Abolishing non-voluntary volunteer work, certainly for the over forty-fives at least;
5) Standardising all pensions, so that there is no reason for governments to deliberately victimise invalids by pretending that they are employable;
6) The government in Canberra must get serious about rental assistance for pensioners. At the moment so-called rental assistance is a sick, dirty joke at best;
7) Overtime must be abolished except for family members of small family businesses;
8) The migrant intact must be dependant upon the unemployment level. When unemployment is five Percent or higher [as it has been in Australia since 1970], the annual migrant intake should be zero;
9) The high court needs to take decisive action to put an end to the human rights violation of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition conspiring with big business to keep unemployment above five Percent in Australia since 1970!;
10) Australia must drop out of the Gatt Accord also known as the open-gate policy, and finally,
11) Work-for-the-dole must either be abolished, or made a hell of a lot fairer!
© Copyright 2010
Philip Roberts


| Email this story Email this Essay | Add to reading list


About | News | Contact | Your Account | TheNextBigWriter | Self Publishing | Advertise

© 2013 TheNextBigWriter, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.