The ideal time for a big society

[Banjo]

The ideal time for a big society

FOR two decades, both sides of federal politics have embraced concepts such as "mutual obligation" and "the enabling state" to encourage welfare recipients to wean themselves off government support.

The policy goal was always correct, but results have been mixed. Just 8.4 per cent of Australia's 822,391 disability support pensioners, for example, receive any income from working. That figure represents a fall in their workforce participation over the past 12 months. It is a step in the wrong direction at a time when one in 15 Australians in the workforce receive the DSP, at an unsustainable cost of $15 billion a year.

Our ageing population and the structural budget deficit make welfare reform essential. Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is right in taking a practical approach to allow community organisations greater scope to boost frontline services. As Patricia Karvelas reports today, less onerous reporting requirements and cutting red tape should free up funding for the not-for-profit sector to tackle poverty and disadvantage. The goal, as Tony Abbott explained in his pre-election Stronger Communities plan when he borrowed a phrase from Liberal founder Robert Menzies' Forgotten People speech, is to encourage more "lifters, not leaners".

In Britain, David Cameron's Conservative government is following a similar policy it has termed the "big society". Its tenet is governments should step back to allow charities more scope because not-for-profit organisations are often better placed than bureaucracies to identify and respond to the needs of the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick and the frail aged. Experience suggests the same holds true in Australia. The non-profit Australian Indigenous Education Foundation has assisted hundreds of indigenous students to attend school and university and Andrew Forrest's Australian Employment Covenant has boosted indigenous employment. Mr Andrews is also right in aiming to develop a culture of philanthropy.

Australia's "one size fits all" welfare system and the largesse provided by taxpayers, often inefficiently, through a plethora of federal and state agencies, is no longer tenable. As the Abbott government is recognising, the private and not-for-profit sectors have a greater role to play in helping the disadvantaged help themselves. In some areas, governments need to be doing less, not more.

- See more at: www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/the-ideal-time-for-a-big-society/story-e6frg71x-1226740549450#sthash.5RkQHrfe.dpuf

[Banjo]

I don't like the sound of this much.

[Deleted]

Oct 16, 2013 9:04:29 GMT 7 Banjo said:

I don't like the sound of this much.

l guess we will know by next years budget all the lovely plans they have install for us, they said they want the private sector involved, l guess some plan to make the jobnetwork fraudsters more millions, maybe make all those they think has some work capacity maybe 300,000 or more DSP's sign up to the jobnetworks and do resume course and jobsearch stuff. Maybe the jobnetworks could actually find some low paid casual jobs, but once the wage subsidy runs out they probably get the sack. l don't think they will move large numbers onto newstart because that increases the unemployemt rate, they will probably just find ways to make our lives worse with mutual obligation.

[scallywag]

Just 8.4 per cent of Australia's 822,391 disability support pensioners, for example, receive any income from working. That figure represents a fall in their workforce participation over the past 12 months.


I wonder if this has anything to do with people showing they can't work to be eligible? It also shows that the job-assistance industry stole half the money they received and returned a negative result from the rest.

[mick]

Guys dont worry about what may happen, the government want us to be afraid.

[Banjo]

It's not about being afraid, it's about being prepared.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

[Denis-NFA]

Oct 16, 2013 9:04:29 GMT 7 Banjo said:

I don't like the sound of this much.

Since the election I've noticed a lot of 'big business' vested interests coming out of the wood work and telling the government how to fix a problem.

In this instance, and to me, the main thrust is promoting to the government what a wonderful job non-profits do and in particular what a wonderful job the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation and Andrew Forrest's Australian Employment Covenant is doing for Indigenous people and how good work can be accomplished through philanthropy.

When I consider that this article appears the day after Andrew Forrest announces a $65 million gift and then check the Australian Indigenous Education Foundations website and see that half their money comes from the government and half from 'big business' and then look at their board of directors and "our partners" down the bottom of that list ( www.aief.com.au/about-aief/our-people/board-of-directors.aspx ) then I have no doubt that this is an advertorial.

And not very well written.

And it is a worry when DSP recipients are used as a divisive whipping post for others to make some point.

[Denis-NFA]

An article in this mornings paper....

MINING giant BHP Billiton will today announce a $10 million investment in indigenous education, a commitment that high school students Jasmin Barunga and Koree Walker-Ryan hope will enable more of their peers to leave their remote communities and join them at boarding school in Perth.

At a breakfast in Perth this morning, the president of BHP Billiton Iron Ore, Jimmy Wilson, will announce an extension of the company's three-year partnership with the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation that will more than double its investment in scholarships for West Australian indigenous students.
- See more at: www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/bhp-investing-in-185-futures-and-then-some/story-fn9hm1pm-1226741994312#sthash.1jugx8bD.dpuf

The article goes on to say that the Government will contribute $4 million to match BHP's gift.

[aussieinusa]

I find it funny that the government still keeps tackling "the DSP problem" -- i.e. the fact that so many of us aren't working -- with solutions that involve making us do the work, not them.

If the government is sincere about getting PWD back to work, then I'd like my old job back, thanks. I worked for a federal government agency but because I was a member of the underclass, i.e. a contract worker, when my health went bad I was out. If they want me off DSP that badly, all they have to do is find a position much like the one I used to do that's coming open (which shouldn't be hard since every government department has one open) and make it flexible enough that I can do it. Which would mean part-time, two half-days in the office and the rest at home; maybe job sharing with someone, although I always got the job done fine in three days a week.

I am the tip of a very large iceberg. This is what the government is sweeping under the rug so you don't see it, while they distract everyone with the big shiny piles of cash they're throwing at Therese Rein et al:

6. How many people with disabilities are employed by government?

The number of people with disabilities employed by the Commonwealth government has declined significantly over the last ten years.

In 2003-2004, people with disabilities made up 3.8 per cent of ongoing Australian Public Service (APS) employees, down from 5.8 per cent ten years ago. The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) suggests that the decline in absolute numbers may be partly explained by a decline in lower level positions where people with a disability have historically made up a greater percentage of employees. However, the APSC notes that there has been a decline in the numbers of employees with a disability in all classifications.[16]

Source: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/national-inquiry-employment-and-disability-issues-paper-1

(I'm looking for some more recent figures but haven't found them yet; if anyone has, please post them!)

So the reality is, the federal government itself dumped a large number of PWD who used to work onto DSP, like they did to me. And then they're saying WE have to do something about that, with the kindly help of their Job Network pals. Does that stink of hypocrisy to you? It sure does to me.

If they don't want us cripples in their workforce -- if they'd rather pay us the lesser rate of DSP than our old salaries -- then they should do so quietly and leave us alone. Not bully us into looking for flexible jobs that simply don't exist, because even the government won't offer the kind of flexibility we need to be able to work.

---

EDIT: I did find some more up-to-date figures re disability employment in the public service, from a 2012 speech:

Although some agencies have begun to reverse the decline in their own workplace in recent times, overall only 2.9% of our employees currently identify themselves as having a disability in official agency databases.

Source: www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/speeches/2012/aps-disabilty-employment-strategy

So in 1993, 5.8% of government employees had disabilities. Now it's around 2.9% -- exactly halved.

And yet, the only thing the geniuses in government can think to do, to address the huge number of DSPers out there, is to throw more money at Therese Rein and her buddies. Am I the only one who find that totally disingenuous??

[aussieinusa]

Oct 17, 2013 4:14:14 GMT 7 Denis-NFA said:

Since the election I've noticed a lot of 'big business' vested interests coming out of the wood work and telling the government how to fix a problem.

In this instance, and to me, the main thrust is promoting to the government what a wonderful job non-profits do and in particular what a wonderful job the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation and Andrew Forrest's Australian Employment Covenant is doing for Indigenous people and how good work can be accomplished through philanthropy.

When I consider that this article appears the day after Andrew Forrest announces a $65 million gift and then check the Australian Indigenous Education Foundations website and see that half their money comes from the government and half from 'big business' and then look at their board of directors and "our partners" down the bottom of that list ( www.aief.com.au/about-aief/our-people/board-of-directors.aspx ) then I have no doubt that this is an advertorial.

You're absolutely right, Denis-NFA. I worked in the media relations section of a federal government agency and have some other media industry experience too, and this is what I'd say happened to create this story:

1. Andrew Forrest's media relations department were told, "publicise this great thing we're doing so our public image improves"
   
2. They composed a press release they thought would appeal to The Australian and its readers
3. It landed in the inbox of whoever filed that opinion piece (there's no byline I can find, which is telling)
4. After flicking through the long list of press releases they received that day, they pulled this one out as something worthy of attention
5. They took the press release and made a story out of it. For the better journos, that means calling a few people to get the other side of the story and re-writing the bits that are company boasting rather than provable fact. For the more time-pressed, it means copy and pasting it into the system they use to file stories, then sending it off to be published.
6. Maybe, if they have a really good editor, they'll say "this sounds like a press release" and send it back. But judging by what I see in the papers, a lot doesn't get sent back despite sounding like a press release.
7. Story shows up in the paper. People read it and repeat it as though it's actually true, adding to their whole mental library of proof that anyone poorer them is a bludger who deserves it, and the only reason we'd object to dealing with the saints in the job network is because we're too lazy to work.

These days, what gets reported as 'news' is literally just a contest of who's got the best press release. Which is why the stories of humble, regular people like us are rarely reported, but the rich bastards running the job network get so many column inches dedicated to how great they are. I really wish I were exaggerating, but unfortunately that's how it goes.

[tom]

switzerland discuss the possibility for an income for everyone doesnt matter if you want to work, work or just stay home.they talking about 2500SF per month for everyone.

this will be the future system on new societies. germany, france also talking about it.

for everyone who is about 40years now dont worry about pension savings cos in about 25years australia will also have this new system.

is a common right for people to have food and housing plus health care without having worries. plain and simple.

[aussieinusa]

It's a great idea, tom -- to provide everyone a basic income and allow them to make decisions about how to live their life without the necessity to take any job available just to be able to eat -- but I'm personally very skeptical about whether it'll happen. It's completely against the interests of big business, which benefits greatly from people having to take shitty jobs; lets them get away with poor work conditions, mind-numbing work, shitty treatment of workers, etc. so I expect they'd use all their muscle to lobby against it.

Then you're also up against the 'work ethic', which is the single great virtue the capitalist religion demands we aspire to. While it hasn't caught on as much in Australia as in the USA, we still have that awful refrain, "get a job!" used frequently as universal advice for anyone with issues. People have bought into the idea that having a job makes you a worthwhile human being and gives you purpose, so what they'd do without it, I don't know. So a lot of people who would benefit a lot from having a universal income at all times will actively oppose it, I expect.

Still, if it does happen, I for one would be thrilled.

[tom]

frugle, the more the wealth and the poor devided the more both sites are not happy and society become unstable. switzerland also wanna introduce wage limit for the rich, maximum 15 times the lowest wage.

in the end the rich and wealthy also fear that the mob goes on streets and that can make the system fail within days, just imagine everyone stops supporting banks and paying loans...

a system change can come quicker than you might think.