Tony Abbott's green army enlisting now

Date
    March 2, 2014



Tony Abbott's federally funded ''green army'' will enlist 15,000 young people in environmental work, striking young workers from official dole queue figures as youth unemployment soared in the year to January to 12.4 per cent.

But young people who fill the green army's ranks will be paid as little as half the minimum wage, earning between $608.40 and $987.40 a fortnight.   :(

The scheme - the cornerstone of the government's environmental policies - is modelled on John Howard's Green Corps, and will be an alternative to work-for-the-dole programs.

Under the legislation introduced by Environment Minister Greg Hunt on Wednesday, green army participants - who will be aged 17-24 - will work up to 30 hours a week. They will be given the chance to undergo formal training as part of their duties, but will lose their Centrelink benefits for taking part in the scheme and fall off official joblessness figures.


The basic rate for a single person getting Newstart (the dole) is $501 a fortnight. But Mr Hunt said the scheme would pay young people ''significantly'' more than they would receive from Centrelink allowances, and he hoped the skills young people learnt on the job would encourage them to move into full-time work.

''It's giving every young person in Australia the chance to do something for the environment, and it's bizarre that anybody would oppose, at this time, a youth training program that helps the environment and increases, significantly, the youths' wages.''

Mr Hunt's office stressed that the green army was ''an environmental and training program, not an employment program'', although the government has repeatedly described the army as Australia's largest ever ''environmental workforce''.

The government is aiming the scheme at indigenous Australians, people with disabilities, gap-year students, graduates and the unemployed. Enlistees will do manual labour, including clearing local creeks and waterways, fencing and tree planting.

Green army members will not be covered by Commonwealth workplace laws, including the Work, Health and Safety Act, the Fair Work Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.   :(

Despite this, Mr Hunt said all green army members would be covered by workplace protections, including state and territory occupational health and safety laws, insurance provided by the government and by ''service providers'' paid by the government to recruit, establish and manage green army teams, and federal work, health and safety ''compliance orders''.

But ACTU president Ged Kearney said the workers should be covered by the appropriate federal workplace protections.

''This is about taking away well-paid, well-protected jobs from people and replacing them with low-paid, unsafe jobs,'' she said. ''This is not about getting people on the margins of the workforce into work, this is about providing a low-paid workforce.''   :(    

Greens MP Adam Bandt said: ''Only Tony Abbott could create a 'workforce' where the workers aren't legally workers and have no workplace rights. If a green army supervisor and a worker under their command get injured while wielding a pick or building a lookout, the supervisor will have the same safety and compensation protections as ordinary employees but the worker won't.''      :(   


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/tony-abbotts-green-army-enlisting-now-20140301-33sy0.html#ixzz2uk7eHvZd

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 6:04am:

Tony Abbott's green army enlisting now Date     March 2, 2014 Tony Abbott's federally funded ''green army'' will enlist 15,000 young people in environmental work, striking young workers from official dole queue figures as youth unemployment soared in the year to January to 12.4 per cent. But young people who fill the green army's ranks will be paid as little as half the minimum wage, earning between $608.40 and $987.40 a fortnight.   :( The scheme - the cornerstone of the government's environmental policies - is modelled on John Howard's Green Corps, and will be an alternative to work-for-the-dole programs. Under the legislation introduced by Environment Minister Greg Hunt on Wednesday, green army participants - who will be aged 17-24 - will work up to 30 hours a week. They will be given the chance to undergo formal training as part of their duties, but will lose their Centrelink benefits for taking part in the scheme and fall off official joblessness figures. The basic rate for a single person getting Newstart (the dole) is $501 a fortnight. But Mr Hunt said the scheme would pay young people ''significantly'' more than they would receive from Centrelink allowances, and he hoped the skills young people learnt on the job would encourage them to move into full-time work. ''It's giving every young person in Australia the chance to do something for the environment, and it's bizarre that anybody would oppose, at this time, a youth training program that helps the environment and increases, significantly, the youths' wages.'' Mr Hunt's office stressed that the green army was ''an environmental and training program, not an employment program'', although the government has repeatedly described the army as Australia's largest ever ''environmental workforce''. The government is aiming the scheme at indigenous Australians, people with disabilities, gap-year students, graduates and the unemployed. Enlistees will do manual labour, including clearing local creeks and waterways, fencing and tree planting. Green army members will not be covered by Commonwealth workplace laws, including the Work, Health and Safety Act, the Fair Work Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.   :( Despite this, Mr Hunt said all green army members would be covered by workplace protections, including state and territory occupational health and safety laws, insurance provided by the government and by ''service providers'' paid by the government to recruit, establish and manage green army teams, and federal work, health and safety ''compliance orders''. But ACTU president Ged Kearney said the workers should be covered by the appropriate federal workplace protections. ''This is about taking away well-paid, well-protected jobs from people and replacing them with low-paid, unsafe jobs,'' she said. ''This is not about getting people on the margins of the workforce into work, this is about providing a low-paid workforce.''   :(     Greens MP Adam Bandt said: ''Only Tony Abbott could create a 'workforce' where the workers aren't legally workers and have no workplace rights. If a green army supervisor and a worker under their command get injured while wielding a pick or building a lookout, the supervisor will have the same safety and compensation protections as ordinary employees but the worker won't.''      :(    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/tony-abbotts-green-army-enlisting-now-20140301-33sy0.html#ixzz2uk7eHvZd

And, as I've stated often, WfD participants should also get 'significantly more' than the standard rate, not a paltry $10 a week. As should volunteer workers.

Excellent scheme
A chance to get fit, give something back, network and increase social contacts and a practical program that will teach skills and improve the environment. Will be popular with taxpayers and will be life changing if participants approach it with the right spirit,
A true win,win,win,win,win.  I can see no downside.

Adam bandt opposes it.
Shows how serious the greens are about the environment

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 7:15am:

Excellent scheme A chance to get fit, give something back, network and increase social contacts and a practical program that will teach skills and improve the environment. Will be popular with taxpayers and will be life changing if participants approach it with the right spirit, A true win,win,win,win,win.  I can see no downside.

Don't your eyes light up at the prospect of cheap labour.  And you're big on everyone else giving something back but haven't yet seen you propose anything that didn't involve a benefit to farmers and employers 

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 7:17am:

Adam bandt opposes it. Shows how serious the greens are about the environment

Abbott proposed it as a climate change initiative as if cleaning waterways and picking up papers was going to do anything about that.  Showed how ignorant he is.   

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 7:24am:

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 7:17am: Adam bandt opposes it. Shows how serious the greens are about the environment Abbott proposed it as a climate change initiative as if cleaning waterways and picking up papers was going to do anything about that.  Showed how ignorant he is.

The green senators drinking cappachinos and discussing the gay mardi gras seems unlikely to benefit the environment ;)

Paint-a-rock without the normal work place protections.

What predictable crap Lieberal govts come up with. A waste of money, fiddling the unemployment figures, and doing nothing to get people into real work.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 7:24am:

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 7:17am: Adam bandt opposes it. Shows how serious the greens are about the environment Abbott proposed it as a climate change initiative as if cleaning waterways and picking up papers was going to do anything about that.  Showed how ignorant he is.

Unlike the greens who are seriously focused on us reducing our carbon emmisions by 20%, which means bringing Australlian's contributions from 2% of the world's output to 1.6% of the world's output.

Yep, we'll have climate change pretty much fixed after we get those reductions up and running.  ;D


I would rather clean up this place and plant some trees than carry on with this carbon reduction wankfest, of trying reduce bugger, all to a little bit less than bugger all.

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 7:30am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 7:24am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 7:17am: Adam bandt opposes it. Shows how serious the greens are about the environment Abbott proposed it as a climate change initiative as if cleaning waterways and picking up papers was going to do anything about that.  Showed how ignorant he is.    The green senators drinking cappachinos and discussing the gay mardi gras seems unlikely to benefit the environment ;)

What a dumb observation. When you're having coffee and discussing the gay mardi gras (which you're doing now BTW) is doing nothing for the environment either. So what's your point

wow look at all these farmers who have just stuck their snouts deep into the welfare trough for drought relief doing their best to stop genuine climate change initiatives 

It's just another government run scam to fudge the unemployment figures.

Training for gardening lol!!!! I'm sure there's jobs for those people when they finish their 'training'.

They are in affect working thirty hours for $50....$1.60 an hour, a right rip off!

BOTR!!!!!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 7:24am:

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 7:17am: Adam bandt opposes it. Shows how serious the greens are about the environment Abbott proposed it as a climate change initiative as if cleaning waterways and picking up papers was going to do anything about that.  Showed how ignorant he is.

What are the crims on community service gonna do now! Their notice of conviction has just been under cut by "work for the dole"! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D or will they have to work side by side :D

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 7:41am:

wow look at all these farmers who have just stuck their snouts deep into the welfare trough for drought relief doing their best to stop genuine climate change initiatives

Well at least they're keeping busy with all that climate change initative stopping and they are not just sitting around a computer making up bullsh1t lies all day.  ;D

What I want to know is.......................
Is this a form of employment?
It's not volunteering by any means.
So in essence you are being employed by the government to earn the dole you receive, hence the name "work for the dole"

So my questions are,
what happens if someone injures them selves whilst on "work for the dole"
do they claim workcover?
Can they sue the government for being injured, example:  A unemployed person has secured a paid position of $1000 per week but the employer does not require them to commence that employment for further 2 or up to 4 weeks, in the mean time they are required to work for the dole and he or she injures themselves and is not able to commence paid employment and has now lost that job.

Any takers on this one???????????????   

De-registered User wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 8:10am:

What I want to know is....................... Is this a form of employment? It's not volunteering by any means. So in essence you are being employed by the government to earn the dole you receive, hence the name "work for the dole" So my questions are, what happens if someone injures them selves whilst on "work for the dole" do they claim workcover? Can they sue the government for being injured, example:  A unemployed person has secured a paid position of $1000 per week but the employer does not require them to commence that employment for further 2 or up to 4 weeks, in the mean time they are required to work for the dole and he or she injures themselves and is not able to commence paid employment and has now lost that job. Any takers on this one???????????????

If they injure themselves they would automatically go onto sickness benefits (unable to work).

They would have to be covered by Workcover, whether on WFTD or Green Corps. They would have to claim compensation from the government, probably through the courts.

There's plenty of legal firms that will fight for you on a no win, no pay basis.

Tony Abbott's green army will be paid half the minimum wage

Date
    March 2, 2014


A ''green army'' of 15,000 young people will be paid as little as half the minimum wage, as fresh details emerge of the federal government's plan to create Australia's largest environmental workforce. 

The plans have attracted the ire of the ACTU, which says the workers will be excluded from protections granted by federal workplace laws and says the program threatens to reset youth wage rates sharply lower.      :o

Under legislation introduced by Environment Minister Greg Hunt on Wednesday, green army participants - who will be aged 17 to 24 - will work up to 30 hours a week.

Young people who fill the green army's ranks will be paid about half the minimum wage, earning between $304.20 and $493.70 a week.

The wages compare with $622.20 a week for the minimum wage and the basic rate of $250.50 a week for a single person getting Newstart, or the dole. The scheme is modelled on John Howard's Green Corps, and will be an alternative to work-for-the-dole programs.

Those enlisted will do manual labour, including clearing local creeks and waterways, fencing and tree planting.

Green army members will be exempt from Commonwealth workplace laws, including the Work Health and Safety Act, the Fair Work Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

They will be given the chance to take part in formal training as part of their duties, but will lose their Centrelink benefits.

The scheme could dent the youth joblessness rate of 12.4 per cent but Mr Hunt's office stressed that it was ''an environmental and training program, not an employment program''.

Mr Hunt said the scheme would pay young people ''significantly'' more than they would receive from Centrelink allowances, and he hoped that the skills young people learnt on the job would encourage them to move into full-time work.

''It's giving every young person in Australia the chance to do something for the environment, and it's bizarre that anybody would oppose, at this time, a youth training program that helps the environment and increases, significantly, the youths' wages.''

But ACTU president Ged Kearney said workers should be covered by appropriate workplace protections.

''This is about taking away well-paid, well-protected jobs from people and replacing them with low-paid, unsafe jobs,'' she said. ''This is not about getting people on the margins of the workforce into work; this is about providing a low-paid workforce.''      :(

Mr Hunt said all members would be covered by workplace protections including state and territory occupational health and safety laws, insurance provided by the government and by ''service providers'' paid by the government to recruit, establish and manage teams. They would also be protected by federal work health and safety ''compliance orders''.

The government will target indigenous Australians, people with disabilities, gap-year students, graduates and the unemployed.

Greens MP Adam Bandt said: ''Only Tony Abbott could create a 'workforce' where the workers aren't legally workers and have no workplace rights. If a green army supervisor and a worker under their command get injured while wielding a pick or building a lookout, the supervisor will have the same safety and compensation protections as ordinary employees but the worker won't.''   :(

Labor's environment spokesman, Mark Butler, said the government should release more details. ''With only four months until this program is due to start, no one is clear on the specific detail about how the Green Army will work. Of considerable concern are the exemptions from work health and safety, compensation and industrial relations laws.''   :(

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-green-army-will-be-paid-half-the-minimum-wage-20140301-33st7.html#ixzz2uklgN5iD

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 7:15am:

Excellent scheme A chance to get fit, give something back, network and increase social contacts and a practical program that will teach skills and improve the environment. Will be popular with taxpayers and will be life changing if participants approach it with the right spirit, A true win,win,win,win,win.  I can see no downside.

so you'll  volunteering your time then?

The government will target indigenous Australians, people with disabilities, gap-year students, graduates and the unemployed.

People with disabilities should not worry, any work prior to undertaking must be first be reviewed and then signed off by the persons GP. if GP deems the work is not suitable and not within the disabled persons capacity then the person will not have to participate in what has been offered as the work for the dole and still receive their entitled payments.
I also believe this would be the case for anyone reaching near their retirement age.

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 8:44am:

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 7:15am: Excellent scheme A chance to get fit, give something back, network and increase social contacts and a practical program that will teach skills and improve the environment. Will be popular with taxpayers and will be life changing if participants approach it with the right spirit, A true win,win,win,win,win.  I can see no downside. so you'll  volunteering your time then?

Not likely. That's only for other people.

Like many conservative commentators, scoot thinks it's a good idea to underpay young workers, yet would not hesitate to put out his hand for the full amount of rent when it falls due.

If a few people are killed by this scheme, would that be a good enough excuse for a wide-ranging Royal Commission and cracking open the confidential cabinet papers of the former Abbott government?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 8:27am:

De-registered User wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 8:10am: What I want to know is....................... Is this a form of employment? It's not volunteering by any means. So in essence you are being employed by the government to earn the dole you receive, hence the name "work for the dole" So my questions are, what happens if someone injures them selves whilst on "work for the dole" do they claim workcover? Can they sue the government for being injured, example:  A unemployed person has secured a paid position of $1000 per week but the employer does not require them to commence that employment for further 2 or up to 4 weeks, in the mean time they are required to work for the dole and he or she injures themselves and is not able to commence paid employment and has now lost that job. Any takers on this one???????????????    If they injure themselves they would automatically go onto sickness benefits (unable to work). They would have to be covered by Workcover, whether on WFTD or Green Corps. They would have to claim compensation from the government, probably through the courts. There's plenty of legal firms that will fight for you on a no win, no pay basis.

I dont think you really understand the implications of being seriously injured whilst on this program.
The injured person could be in rehabilitation and not fit for any duties including looking for paid employment anywhere from 1week and possibly up to 52 weeks or more depending on injury.
In regards to the scenario in my previous post, the person has now lost a secured paid position of $1000 per week due to the injury received whilst on the WFTD program and still receiving benefits from the government.
1. Can the person sue the government for lost wages and projected wage increases until the person is fit to look for work again or until the worker "secures" similar paid work again which possibly could take many years.
This could get very expensive for the tax payer and ruin the injured person. No matter how legitimate the claim would be the claim could take years to finalize and depending on the persons financial position this could send some over the edge. I dont think the government would have any legal right to be exempt from this. 
What happens if the person is injured whilst travelling to and from the program?

Who do these people have to turn to for the right of being safe whilst on the WFTD program? Who is the watch dog? it can not possibly be self governed!

This is real time when a union is needed to support these people.      

Abbott said that $80,000 was not enough to live on and yet he wants to pay workers less than minimum wage.

How do these people pay their bills when they are on slave wages?

Exactly what skills will the person learn?

We've got Asia at our footsteps all learning high tech skills and then getting those industries, and our government is going to solve youth unemployment by having everyone grow trees and get half the minimum wage for it.

Great scheme, that puts Australia ahead of the rest in the high tech 21st century.  What a bounce of morons.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:18pm:

Exactly what skills will the person learn?

How to work with poor pay rates and no working conditions in an unsafe environment doing a job which will not achieve a thing other than a political pretence?

adelcrow wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:07pm:

Abbott said that $80,000 was not enough to live on and yet he wants to pay workers less than minimum wage. How do these people pay their bills when they are on slave wages?

It is more than the dole cheque they were recieving before, so they shouldn't complain too much.

Not to mention that this scheme is better suited for
1. Work visa holders
2. Minimum security criminals for rehabilitation
Or
3. Refugees, for integration programs

Not graduates.  Nor skilled young people who may be struggling to find work as a result of the sliding economy. 

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:28pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:07pm: Abbott said that $80,000 was not enough to live on and yet he wants to pay workers less than minimum wage. How do these people pay their bills when they are on slave wages? It is more than the dole cheque they were recieving before, so they shouldn't complain too much.

You missed the point bigol ... as usual ... no one said those on the dole earn $80 000 ...

Abbott once claimed that $80 000 wasn't enough to live on ... if thats how he feels, why does he want to pay these people a third of that amount to plant his trees?

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:32pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:28pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:07pm: Abbott said that $80,000 was not enough to live on and yet he wants to pay workers less than minimum wage. How do these people pay their bills when they are on slave wages? It is more than the dole cheque they were recieving before, so they shouldn't complain too much. You missed the point bigol ... as usual ... no one said those on the dole earn $80 000 ... Abbott once claimed that $80 000 wasn't enough to live on ... if thats how he feels, why does he want to pay these people a third of that amount to plant his trees?

John, because all young people are bludgers who want to be on the dole.  And don't get me started on those disabled people.

Obviously.

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:32pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:28pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:07pm: Abbott said that $80,000 was not enough to live on and yet he wants to pay workers less than minimum wage. How do these people pay their bills when they are on slave wages? It is more than the dole cheque they were recieving before, so they shouldn't complain too much. You missed the point bigol ... as usual ... no one said those on the dole earn $80 000 ... Abbott once claimed that $80 000 wasn't enough to live on ... if thats how he feels, why does he want to pay these people a third of that amount to plant his trees?

Both of you didn't read the story.

Who gives a bugger that some welfare recipient doesn't get $80k to plant trees, they get more than the dole, so they should be happy they they got a 'pay rise'.


Personnaly I don't give a bugger what abbott has to say, you people need to learn that pollies, ALL pollies, are lying peices of sh1t. I bet i could track down some labor idiot complain that some huge amount of money is tough to live on too, so friggen what.

You are both so focused on what that idiot abbott says and have a pathalogical need to make everything about him, no-one cares, he's just another POS pollie. We will get a different one soon enough and you still won't be happy.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:32pm: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:28pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:07pm: Abbott said that $80,000 was not enough to live on and yet he wants to pay workers less than minimum wage. How do these people pay their bills when they are on slave wages? It is more than the dole cheque they were recieving before, so they shouldn't complain too much. You missed the point bigol ... as usual ... no one said those on the dole earn $80 000 ... Abbott once claimed that $80 000 wasn't enough to live on ... if thats how he feels, why does he want to pay these people a third of that amount to plant his trees? John, because all young people are bludgers who want to be on the dole.  And don't get me started on those disabled people. Obviously.

Didn't say anything of the like, didn't even say anything the could be inferred as that; so if all you have is total lies, time to move on.

Looks like I win this round, next!  :)

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:40pm:

Who gives a bugger that some welfare recipient doesn't get $80k to plant trees, they get more than the dole, so they should be happy they they got a 'pay rise'.

wrong, they are either unemployed, in which case the dole is supposed to help them stay alive until they find a job, or they are employed, in which case they should be on a full wage for the job being performed ... this half assed 'paid more than the dole'is just a way to get scab labor.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:35pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:32pm: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:28pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:07pm: Abbott said that $80,000 was not enough to live on and yet he wants to pay workers less than minimum wage. How do these people pay their bills when they are on slave wages? It is more than the dole cheque they were recieving before, so they shouldn't complain too much. You missed the point bigol ... as usual ... no one said those on the dole earn $80 000 ... Abbott once claimed that $80 000 wasn't enough to live on ... if thats how he feels, why does he want to pay these people a third of that amount to plant his trees? John, because all young people are bludgers who want to be on the dole.  And don't get me started on those disabled people. Obviously. Didn't say anything of the like, didn't even say anything the could be inferred as that; so if all you have is total lies, time to move on. Looks like I win this round, next!  :)

Actually I wasn't referring to you at all, and I apologise if you felt I was. I was just being general in how I feel our truly dumb government sees young people and the disabled.  Because their statements over the election and in recent times seems to suggest they are very far from reality, as is normal in the case of a coalition government.

In relation to your comment, I think people should complain.  The majority of people on the dole would, in my opinion, wished to get into employment within their skill set, and as fast as possible.  Especially young graduates, who've spent thousands on an education and who know how detrimental it would be if they don't get a job in their skill set within the first year.  And especially young apprentices, builders, plumbers, carpenters etc who want to work in their field but the recent economic conditions have seen their industries grind to a hold.

And based on that, you can see how planting a tree isn't really a suitable alternative.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:47pm:

Actually I wasn't referring to you at all, and I apologise if you felt I was. I was just being general in how I feel our truly dumb government sees young people and the disabled.  Because their statements over the election and in recent times seems to suggest they are very far from reality, as is normal in the case of a coalition government. In relation to your comment, I think people should complain.  The majority of people on the dole would, in my opinion, wished to get into employment within their skill set, and as fast as possible.  Especially young graduates, who've spent thousands on an education and who know how detrimental it would be if they don't get a job in their skill set within the first year.  And especially young apprentices, builders, plumbers, carpenters etc who want to work in their field but the recent economic conditions have seen their industries grind to a hold. And based on that, you can see how planting a tree isn't really a suitable alternative.

Fair enough.

I have been through a couple recessions and it is no fun at all.

You just do the best you can until it turns around, expecting /  demanding sh1t to be done the way you want, is just going to make you angry.


No recession for the last 20 odd years has made people complacent and unprepared.

And can I add that is our lousy government is truly interested in closing the gap between indigenous Australia and non indigenous Australia, than the last thing they should do is put indigenous Australians into a scheme were they get half the minimum wage, and skills that don't have any demand.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:58pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:47pm: Actually I wasn't referring to you at all, and I apologise if you felt I was. I was just being general in how I feel our truly dumb government sees young people and the disabled.  Because their statements over the election and in recent times seems to suggest they are very far from reality, as is normal in the case of a coalition government. In relation to your comment, I think people should complain.  The majority of people on the dole would, in my opinion, wished to get into employment within their skill set, and as fast as possible.  Especially young graduates, who've spent thousands on an education and who know how detrimental it would be if they don't get a job in their skill set within the first year.  And especially young apprentices, builders, plumbers, carpenters etc who want to work in their field but the recent economic conditions have seen their industries grind to a hold. And based on that, you can see how planting a tree isn't really a suitable alternative. Fair enough. I have been through a couple recessions and it is no fun at all. You just do the best you can until it turns around, expecting /  demanding sh1t to be done the way you want, is just going to make you angry. No recession for the last 20 odd years has made people complacent and unprepared.

The point is this stupid scheme won’t give anybody any skills.

And I have been through recessions as well—starting with one of the idiot Menzies credit squeezes when we arrived here in 1957. Not as an adult that one but remember Dad doing make work for the camp, the worry about money etc.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 5:18pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:47pm: Actually I wasn't referring to you at all, and I apologise if you felt I was. I was just being general in how I feel our truly dumb government sees young people and the disabled.  Because their statements over the election and in recent times seems to suggest they are very far from reality, as is normal in the case of a coalition government. In relation to your comment, I think people should complain.  The majority of people on the dole would, in my opinion, wished to get into employment within their skill set, and as fast as possible.  Especially young graduates, who've spent thousands on an education and who know how detrimental it would be if they don't get a job in their skill set within the first year.  And especially young apprentices, builders, plumbers, carpenters etc who want to work in their field but the recent economic conditions have seen their industries grind to a hold. And based on that, you can see how planting a tree isn't really a suitable alternative. Fair enough. I have been through a couple recessions and it is no fun at all. You just do the best you can until it turns around, expecting /  demanding sh1t to be done the way you want, is just going to make you angry. No recession for the last 20 odd years has made people complacent and unprepared. The point is this stupid scheme won’t give anybody any skills.

Im pretty sure it never was the point of the scheme.

I thought it was to plant some trees and clean up the place.

If you want skills go to uni or tafe, being on the dole isn't the place to get skills.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 6:15pm:

If you want skills go to uni or tafe, being on the dole isn't the place to get skills.

can't, the libs have been busy slashing tafe funding

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 6:17pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 6:15pm: If you want skills go to uni or tafe, being on the dole isn't the place to get skills. can't, the libs have been busy slashing tafe funding

Well at least everyone has an excuse for their failure to acheive any level of looking after themselves like adults.


Best I work longer hours so I can pay more taxes and fund all of this

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 8:44am:

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 7:15am: Excellent scheme A chance to get fit, give something back, network and increase social contacts and a practical program that will teach skills and improve the environment. Will be popular with taxpayers and will be life changing if participants approach it with the right spirit, A true win,win,win,win,win.  I can see no downside. so you'll  volunteering your time then?

No , but I'm happy to volunteer my land ;)

Bam wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 9:05am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 8:44am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 7:15am: Excellent scheme A chance to get fit, give something back, network and increase social contacts and a practical program that will teach skills and improve the environment. Will be popular with taxpayers and will be life changing if participants approach it with the right spirit, A true win,win,win,win,win.  I can see no downside. so you'll  volunteering your time then? Not likely. That's only for other people. Like many conservative commentators, scoot thinks it's a good idea to underpay young workers, yet would not hesitate to put out his hand for the full amount of rent when it falls due.

Not true ;)
I have over a dozen rescue horses saved from the diggers on my property , free of charge. I like to think of them as equine asylum seekers

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 6:15pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 5:18pm: BigOl64 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:47pm: Actually I wasn't referring to you at all, and I apologise if you felt I was. I was just being general in how I feel our truly dumb government sees young people and the disabled.  Because their statements over the election and in recent times seems to suggest they are very far from reality, as is normal in the case of a coalition government. In relation to your comment, I think people should complain.  The majority of people on the dole would, in my opinion, wished to get into employment within their skill set, and as fast as possible.  Especially young graduates, who've spent thousands on an education and who know how detrimental it would be if they don't get a job in their skill set within the first year.  And especially young apprentices, builders, plumbers, carpenters etc who want to work in their field but the recent economic conditions have seen their industries grind to a hold. And based on that, you can see how planting a tree isn't really a suitable alternative. Fair enough. I have been through a couple recessions and it is no fun at all. You just do the best you can until it turns around, expecting /  demanding sh1t to be done the way you want, is just going to make you angry. No recession for the last 20 odd years has made people complacent and unprepared. The point is this stupid scheme won’t give anybody any skills. Im pretty sure it never was the point of the scheme. I thought it was to plant some trees and clean up the place. If you want skills go to uni or tafe, being on the dole isn't the place to get skills.

Actually, making valid, recognised training available to any unemployed person who wishes to avail themselves of it should be mandatory. And the recipient should be able to decide on the course, level and duration, not Centrelink or JN providers.

Howard and the arch-ratbag Abbott (as Ho-hum's Unemployment Minister) Brought in their 'Mutual Obligation' bullsh1t, but the obligation has never been mutual, it's all one-way. Do your WfD, don't complain, and for the life of you, don't ever miss a pointless, punitive time-wasting 'appointment' or you'll lose your money. But they provided very little training, and that only entry-level for menial jobs.

If you were a labourer or time-expired apprentice who couldn't get work, God (and the govt) forbid if you wanted to get trained in, say, computing, to a level where an employer would look at you. No, you'd be sent to learn how to use a shovel, or push a barrow. Or, the ultimate in pointlessness, classes on how to write a resume or application letter. To someone who may have been in the workforce for 30 years or more, this was, and is, simply insulting.

While I was out of work during the 'recession we had to have', I took advantage of every CES course I could get into, figuring the skills would one day come in handy, even if the courses didn't lead me directly into a permanent job or some kind of casual work. And they have. Many, many times. Doing recognised training is never a waste of time, although at the time it may seem so.

Almost from the (black) day Howard was elected, the training dried up in favour of the 110% punitive WfD scam. Rudd/Gillard did attempt to address the training issue, but it went into the 'too hard' basket I think, because very little changed.

This scheme of Abbott's may be OK for the young who may never have had a job before, but it would be shag-all use to someone like, say, me. There's little I'd be likely to learn, at my age I have less than no interest or enthusiasm for manual labour (and KNOW I'm better than that), and I won't be working for less than the award/minimum wage. Of course, if I was to be employed (properly employed) as a trainer/supervisor on the scheme, at full pay and conditions, I'd seriously consider it.

But, like everything the conservatives come up with regarding the unemployed, I doubt the driving motive is anything but punitive.


Now, bring on the usual suspects with their abuse and denigration.  >:(

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 4:18pm:

Exactly what skills will the person learn? We've got Asia at our footsteps all learning high tech skills and then getting those industries, and our government is going to solve youth unemployment by having everyone grow trees and get half the minimum wage for it. Great scheme, that puts Australia ahead of the rest in the high tech 21st century.  What a bounce of nice people.

They'll learn the skill of getting out of bed when the alarm clock goes off

A crap scheme to fiddle the unemloyment figures.

Unemployment will be 8% by the end of the year.

States are closing TAFES, the shambles will stop the NBN—you would think unemployment was at 0.5% instead of 6% and rising FFS!

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 8:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm: Exactly what skills will the person learn? We've got Asia at our footsteps all learning high tech skills and then getting those industries, and our government is going to solve youth unemployment by having everyone grow trees and get half the minimum wage for it. Great scheme, that puts Australia ahead of the rest in the high tech 21st century.  What a bounce of nice people. They'll learn the skill of getting out of bed when the alarm clock goes off

My God, you DO like to stereotype, don't you?

Do you actually have ANY idea what you're on about, or are you just here to slip
the boot into the faces of the unemployed, however unjustified that may be.

If you (and some of the other unemployed-hating righties on here) actually had
a clue what it's like to be unemployed, and came up with useful and practical
plans to ease the lot of those without a job, you just may be taken a bit more
seriously.

But ALL you lot seem to come up with involves punishing them, discriminating
against them, making them work for, essentially, nothing or pettily taking some-
thing away from them.

The Right sit there saying utterly stupid and offensive things like 'Oh, you're on
the dole, you have no right to the computer and internet connection that 'my taxes
paid for', or 'They spend it all on booze, drugs and gambling, so we should have
the right to tell them how and when they can spend their money, and on what'.

Or the all-time howler 'The dole was never meant to be a lifestyle choice'. How
shagging offensive do you think that sounds when you HAVE NO CHOICE?

There are, roughly, 200,000 jobs vacant, but there are 800,000 LOOKING for
those jobs. So how can you mob sit there with a straight face and deem 600,000
people to be drunks, drug addicts, problem gamblers and terminally work-shy
PURELY because they are the unlucky ones who miss out?

You lot should really have a listen to the crap you spew re the unemployed, and
be ashamed of yourselves. STOP blaming and punishing the unemployed for being
put in a position they do not want, cannot control or alter, and were not responsible
for in the first instance

Of course, I expect nothing but abuse and ridicule in response to these comments.

As usual.

aquascoot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 8:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 8:44am: aquascoot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2014 at 7:15am: Excellent scheme A chance to get fit, give something back, network and increase social contacts and a practical program that will teach skills and improve the environment. Will be popular with taxpayers and will be life changing if participants approach it with the right spirit, A true win,win,win,win,win.  I can see no downside. so you'll  volunteering your time then? No , but I'm happy to volunteer my land ;)

Look after your own bloody land, bludger. If it's not good enough for you to look after it, why should others do it for you?

I would have thought leftys would think planting trees was a good idea.

I do.

“Green Army” will pick up rubbish, clear waterways and other demeaning crap like that.

Where are the trees going to be planted sprinty one?

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 9:12pm:

“Green Army” will pick up rubbish, clear waterways and other demeaning crap like that.

Oh dear. 

Quote:

The government is aiming the {Green Army} scheme at indigenous Australians, people with disabilities, gap-year students, graduates and the unemployed. Enlistees will do manual labour, including clearing local creeks and waterways, fencing and tree planting.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/tony-abbotts-green-army-enlisting-now-20140301-33sy0.html#ixzz2ukc22N9U