Australia

3613 readers

69 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

The budget reveals what Australia's governments actually care about. And Labor has chosen to keep jobseekers in poverty | Greg Jericho (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Many people that end up in Jobseeker should be on the DSP or NDIS, but aren't because of very onerous requirements. And some people get turned down from work, even the most basic jobs, because of discrimination of various forms.

And according to the article, raising Jobseeker would take only a tiny amount of the budget, while moving many of the most disadvantaged people out of poverty. Which is much better value for money than many of the other measures that are included in a typical budget.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And some people get turned down from work, even the most basic jobs, because of discrimination of various forms.

So, nothing to do with Jobseeker then. That money would need to be instead be allocated toward addressing those issues, not rewarding them by financially offsetting them with no way out of the hole.

Jobseeker has a very specific outline. You're wanting to see that money go on other things that also have very specific outlines and are better suited.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So, nothing to do with Jobseeker then. That money would need to be instead be allocated toward addressing those issues, not rewarding them by financially offsetting them with no way out of the hole.

Addressing discrimination is the type of thing that takes decades to solve. In the mean time, what is an unemployed person who can't get a job supposed to do? Become homeless and have their issues compounded dramatically? If you think that more public housing should be built, then I agree 100% but again, that's something that takes a long time to fix and doesn't help with the very immediate housing and food costs that poor people face.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I don't really see a person being able to work, but remaining unemployed being related to there being no work available. It would either be intentional or invalidity of some form. As I mentioned, there is always casual work available. The organisation I work at, there's always roles available that would net someone triple what Jobseeker does. There's entire industries based on these roles.

If someone can't get one of these jobs, it could only be invalidity and they shouldn't be on the lower Jobseeker payments.