A huge gap exists between what the government euphemistically calls "individually tailored services" and the shoe-horning of individual clients into an industrial-scale machine that presents them with a narrow set of criteria to which they must conform, under threat of harsh penalties. In addition, avenues for inquiry and complaint are very limited when things go wrong. Reliance on technology to manage the huge case-load also poses problems. Centrelink and Jobs Network service-providers have come to rely on a rigid set of rules, and this has taken a toll on individual welfare-recipients seeking to engage with the machine. Security-mechanisms that have supposedly been introduced to protect clients can also lock them out of the system. Admittedly, problems arising in this area may be difficult to reconcile in the short-term, but a lack-of-concern about the huge burden this situation places on welfare-recipients is contrary to the requirements of Mutual Obligation. Dead-Endism The payment of Newstart Allowance to applicants is based on the notion that the payment is provided to meet living-costs only until such time as the applicant secures sufficient employment to live independently of the payment. However, in the presence of job-shortage, many Newstart-recipients remain registered with Centrelink while being engaged in short-term and casual work; participate in what, for many, are revolving-door training-schemes; or are coerced into work-for-the-dole and voluntary-work programs. In the process, Newstart Allowance is coming to be regarded as a de-facto-wage, even though it remains below the level of the minimum-wage. Given that growing numbers of Newstart-recipients are reporting extreme difficulty in finding secure employment, and that Newstart Allowance has ceased to be a for these people, ongoing forced-reliance on the payment has become something of a trap. Considering that the Federal Government has consistently refused to embrace suggestions that Australia has a jobs-shortage, while at the same time directing into programs that do not lead to secure, it appears that the stated purpose of Newstart Allowance no longer applies to many of those receiving it. If Mutual Obligation truly is a bilateral relationship, within which dialogue is an integral part, the presence of this anomaly, and the absence of any effort to explain it can be interpreted as an affront to the spirit of Mutual Obligation.
A huge gap exists between what the government euphemistically calls "individually tailored services" and the shoe-horning of individual clients into an industrial-scale machine that presents them with a narrow set of criteria to which they must conform, under threat of harsh penalties. In addition, avenues for inquiry and complaint are very limited when things go wrong. Reliance on technology to manage the huge case-load also poses problems. Centrelink and Jobs Network service-providers have come to rely on a rigid set of rules, and this has taken a toll on individual welfare-recipients seeking to engage with the machine. Security-mechanisms that have supposedly been introduced to protect clients can also lock them out of the system. Admittedly, problems arising in this area may be difficult to reconcile in the short-term, but a lack-of-concern about the huge burden this situation places on welfare-recipients is contrary to the requirements of Mutual Obligation. Dead-Endism The payment of Newstart Allowance to applicants is based on the notion that the payment is provided to meet living-costs only until such time as the applicant secures sufficient employment to live independently of the payment. However, in the presence of job-shortage, many Newstart-recipients remain registered with Centrelink while being engaged in short-term and casual work; participate in what, for many, are revolving-door training-schemes; or are coerced into work-for-the-dole and voluntary-work programs. In the process, Newstart Allowance is coming to be regarded as a de-facto-wage, even though it remains below the level of the minimum-wage. Given that growing numbers of Newstart-recipients are reporting extreme difficulty in finding secure employment, and that Newstart Allowance has ceased to be a for these people, ongoing forced-reliance on the payment has become something of a trap. Considering that the Federal Government has consistently refused to embrace suggestions that Australia has a jobs-shortage, while at the same time directing into programs that do not lead to secure, it appears that the stated purpose of Newstart Allowance no longer applies to many of those receiving it. If Mutual Obligation truly is a bilateral relationship, within which dialogue is an integral part, the presence of this anomaly, and the absence of any effort to explain it can be interpreted as an affront to the spirit of Mutual Obligation.
223_-_nick_costello_b.docx