THE buying power of Australia's unemployment benefit is shrinking.

Figures compiled by The Age show that in the past 10 years the purchasing power of the fortnightly Newstart allowance has slipped by $22 at a time when the buying power of the fortnightly age and disability pension has soared $175.  

The difference is because of a one-off jump in the pension in 2009 and because the pension increases in line with average male earnings, while Newstart increases in step with the lower consumer price index.


The single unemployment benefit is now just $474.90 per fortnight. The single pension is a much higher $729.30 per fortnight.  

Projections prepared for the Henry review see Newstart shrinking to a mere third of the pension by 2050 unless the rules are changed.  

Cost-of-living figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show Newstart recipients are even more disadvantaged than the comparison suggests.  

Living costs for Australians on allowances other than the age pension climbed 4.6 per cent during the past financial year at a time when the consumer price index climbed 3.6 per cent. Living costs for Australians on allowances have outpaced the official rate of inflation in all but two of the past 10 financial years.

The cumulative effect means the buying power of the unemployment benefit is falling, despite the claim on the Centrelink website that Newstart is adjusted ''in line with increases in the cost of living''.  

''It is galling and simply appalling that the government publishes data on the cost of living for benefit recipients and then fails to take note of the results and raise payments to job seekers,'' said Gerard Thomas of the Welfare Rights Centre.

''The last time the rate of unemployment benefit was raised beyond the consumer price index, Clinton was president of the United States, the internet was just an idea and mobile phones were rare and the size of bricks.''  

Tougher rules due to start in January will cut the number of Australians assessed as eligible for the disability support pension by around 40 per cent, pushing more Australians on to Newstart.  

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development warned in November that the single rate of Newstart had fallen below the poverty line, raising ''issues about its effectiveness in providing … support for those experiencing job loss or enabling someone to look for a suitable job''.

The Australian Council of Social Service wants the size of Newstart discussed at the October tax summit.  

A spokesman for Employment Minister Chris Evans said the government recognised that being on Newstart was ''no easy ride''.

''That's why our first priority is to help people get a paid job,'' the spokesman said.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/pension-up-but-jobless-struggle-20110821-1j4ta.html#ixzz1VhKTQEmQ

''It is galling and simply appalling that the government publishes data on the cost of living for benefit recipients and then fails to take note of the results and raise payments to job seekers,'' said Gerard Thomas of the Welfare Rights Centre.  

''The last time the rate of unemployment benefit was raised beyond the consumer price index, Clinton was president of the United States, the internet was just an idea and mobile phones were rare and the size of bricks.  

Yes Kat I think your right.  Unemployment can happen to anyone at any time, both young or old.  Those that are working today, could be the ones that are unemployed tomorrow.   

Maybe they should try and get a job at Qantas, or perhaps at BlueScope Steel.   

Imcrook, when was the last time you took positive steps to get a job.

With the amount of time you spend on here, you must not spend much time looking for a job.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 8:45am:





Yet another misconception.

Sorry,  I misunderstood your post. And yes,  you could be right.

Threads on this topic always die, or degenerate into abuse.

Why can't we just admit that the unemployed have been
handed the shytty end of the stick for FAR too long, and
actually DO something about it?

Regular posters, an those who used to post in Y^@00 politics
know my views well. Vilification and marginalisation are not the
answer. Nor are make-work schemes like WfD.

WfD COULD be a brilliant scheme, if only there was
some TRAINING, some WORK-EXPERIENCE, and a
DECENT PAY-PACKET.

Keating had THIS one right, Howard killed it within a
week or so of winning power. Keating's 'WfD' scheme
GOT PEOPLE JOBS. WfD doesn't. Why? Keating's scheme
had a comulsory TRAINIG component.

Even Andrei would have to agree that this is fair and reasonable: -

*Six months GUARANTEED work. At a REAL job (not make-work).

*One monts compulsory training, relevant to the job. RECOGNISED
certificates/tickets awarded on successful completion.

*Pay-rate approx half-way between the 'dole' and the
 award for the particular job involved.

*Preferential referrals from the (then) CES, as you had PROVEN yourself
not to be an unemployable bludger. those that WERE bludgers were
culled' early, often by the vote or request of other participants.

EVERYBODY won from that scheme.

Because, like the participants,

I did it myself, actually, in 1995, and was unemployed for all
of two weeks after the scheme ended.

Yes, I've been unemployed, THAT'S why I stick up for them.

I KNOW, only TOO well, how devastating it can be.

But don't EVER call ME a bludger.