Work for the dole under Howard was an overwhelming failure.

It left unemployed people depressed, unmotivated and reduced the amount of time available to find employment. People forced onto WFTD ended up unemployed, and therefore a larger burden on taxpayers, for longer than non-WFTD unemployment welfare recipients.

Work for the dole under Howard was an overwhelming failure.

It left unemployed people depressed, unmotivated and reduced the amount of time available to find employment. People forced onto WFTD ended up unemployed, and therefore a larger burden on taxpayers, for longer than non-WFTD unemployment welfare recipients.

WFD puts people on centerlink on less than half minimum wage (It works out at $6.36/hour, which is disgusting), so they can hardly afford to live. Then they've got less time to actively look for work, since not showing up for a WFD shift means they lose their benefits so they can't interview for other positions. They call it "an attempt to get people off benefits and working" when all it does is trap people on benefits.

Something needs to happen. They need a tea-spoon of cement if having to work for their charity hurts their delicate feelings. The rest of Australia has to work to provide for their families as well as their own.

Maybe if they worked for 4 hours a day. Its still a contribution that would likely remove a lot of the hatred angled at welfare recipients. They can use the rest of the day to look for alternative employment.

Make them work for half the day. Then they're on 12.72/hour. If this scheme is put into action, perhaps they could increase the dole and have them carry out civil works like maintaining parks and what not. Then everyone benefits.

It's about time people were encouraged to work. Welfare is not a hand out. Hopefully if forced to work and if they work well, they can use the experience to find a job better suited to their liking.

If that "something" happening demonstrably makes things worse, it probably doesn't need to happen.

True but any idea is encouraging and much better than writing blank cheques.

The federal government will press ahead with "an independent program" to study the health effects of wind farms even though a survey of global research on the issue by a leading Australian medical body is yet to be made public.

The National Health and Medical Research Council began its review of so-called ''wind-turbine syndrome'' in September 2012 and the results are expected to be released in ''coming months''. Prime Minister Tony Abbott told commercial radio this month that research should be refreshed "from time to time" to consider whether there were "new facts that impact on old judgments". "It is some years since the NHMRC last looked at this issue - why not do it again?" Mr Abbott said. A "rapid review" of the evidence by the council in 2010 found "renewable energy generation is associated with few adverse health effects''.

The Victorian government will contribute $100,000 to the extra wind farm health study by the council or other designated body.

Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at Sydney University, said Mr Abbott appeared to be swayed by a tiny group of anti-wind farm campaigners, such as the Waubra Foundation. "We all need to be concerned about whether he's being influenced by little more than a cult."

Sarah Laurie, chief executive of the Waubra Foundation, supports the extra study.

They don't want them working half the day. They want them 30-40 hours a week.

What can you possibly learn from working for a charity? What skills do you develop folding and sorting clothes for the Brotherhood of St Lawrence or picking up rubbish for the local council? Furthermore why would they bother to train someone in the detailed workings of the organisation when they're forced to replace that person after 3 months?

Furthermore you're talking about people who barely learned anything in 13 years of 6 hours a day schooling, I don't think they're going to learn much from petulantly being forced to pick up rubbish on the side of the road.

True but any idea is encouraging and much better than writing blank cheques.

It's not a blank cheque. Since when is $509 a fortnight a "blank cheque"? That wouldn't even cover my rent!

Currently there are some 800,000 Australians on welfare of some description, 220,000 of those have been on welfare for more than 12 months. Under the previous WFD scheme that number of "long term recipients" was up over 500,000. That should tell you pretty clearly that the system doesn't work.

800,000 x $509/fortnight is $407,200,000/fortnight. Can you see why people like me want something done. That's a hospital like the one built here on the GC every 2 months in welfare. That's why something needs to happen to reduce that number and to get those on it trained and job ready.

That's 800,000 TOTAL on welfare, that includes those who are employed but receive income assistance, those who are on carer's benefits, etc.

Furthermore that the number went UP with the previous WFD scheme. The reality is that they're willing to spend more money on welfare so that they can cut funding to local governments and organisations. They'd rather have someone on WFD doing the work and costing them $13,000/year instead of the $30k/year they have to pay a government employee on minimum wage.

It's got nothing to do with getting people off welfare and into real jobs. If they wanted to do that they'd invest more money in tertiary education. No, it's about cheap labour.

Plus, if you're forced to do WFD, how can you get your foot in the door with casual or part time work? Isn't it better that people are working part time and getting paid less welfare than forced to work on the dole and be unable to find legitimate income?

If they're going to go down this road of WFD, surely minimal hours and flexible hours would be necessary.

single mothers who have all these kids they can't pay for.

Perhaps more public spending on contraception and access to abortion is the answer, then.

What has the world learned about Australia from Abbott’s keynote address to the World Economic Forum? Alan Austin reports from France.

AUSTRALIANS WATCHED TONY ABBOTT fly off to Switzerland this week to deliver an important speech to world leaders with muted anticipation. Commentary in advance ranged between frank pessimism and outright dismay.

It is clear now the PM failed to live up to those expectations.

Fortunately, the damage done to Australia’s reputation was limited by most media declining even to mention the Abbott embarrassment.

The New York Times has extensive coverage of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, with a dedicated web page and many feature articles exploring the key themes and major players. None mentions Abbott — who, by virtue of the high regard for his predecessor, finds himself the accidental president of the G20 for 2014.

Le Télégramme, L'Humanité and Le Parisien in France published stories from the WEF but completely ignored Abbott. L’Agence France-Presse filed multiple reports profiling the contributors, but excluding Abbott.

Le Figaro focussed on the speech by International Monetary Fund director Christine Lagarde who addressed constructively the new dangers – nouveaux risques – threatening global recovery. These are, she said, deflation in Europe, tapering of US monetary policy and distortions in global financial markets.

With an embarrassed cough, Le Figaro noted Abbott’s address as a footnote, quoting him as calling for more free trade, an idea that was a long way from the agenda – très loin de la thématique – of earlier gatherings.

Les Echos did mention the keynote speech, reporting that the thrust of Australia’s G20 presidency will be free trade. It noted it was odd Abbott didn’t mention the World Trade Organisation.

The Guardian in Britain headlined its piece “Does Tony Abbott always make the same speech?” and reported that it “struck a familiar tone and was criticised for being inappropriately partisan.”

Indeed, Abbott’s reputation as a buffoon appears to have preceded him to Davos.

[youtube]WGMeXeFfZRw[/youtube]

The Financial Times UK’s economics editor, Chris Giles, tweeted:

Abbott’s speech confirmed the nagging suspicions many have had since he assumed the prime ministership, following one of the most manipulated media campaigns in any democracy in living memory.

It repeated all the trite slogans that worked in Western Sydney:

Unfortunately, I am not making this up.

Riddled with indicators of ignorance, the speech confirmed Abbott knows little about contemporary economics.

He quoted, for example, statistical measures from China:
He seems quite unaware that economists no longer trust statistics from China.

[youtube]-BN9hTULtmA[/youtube]

All economies today use strategic borrowings, at different levels, from different sources and for different purposes. Managing borrowings is a major challenge. Abbott’s glib admonition “You don’t address debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit” displayed a dismissive attitude to this complex reality.

There was no sense of understanding the challenges the WEF faces in 2014, let alone having insights into ways forward.

What little strategy Abbott advocated seemed contradictory. He asserted that the global financial crisis (GFC) “was not a crisis of markets but one of governance.”

And then boasted of Australia,

Okay. That makes sense.

The prize blunders arrived, however, when Abbott directly attacked the stimulus packages of the Rudd/Gillard administrations:
Partly correct.

In 1996, Australia was the 6th-ranked economy in the world. But by 2007, after 11 years of a Coalition government, it had slipped back to 10th place. Still, that is one of the best.

Abbott continued:

Two stupidities.

First, it was precisely that extensive rapid spending through the GFC which saw Australia rise from 10th-ranked economy in 2007 to the world's top ranking by 2012, a reality all those present with an awareness of the G20 economies would have known.

Secondly, attacks on domestic opponents are never acceptable abroad.

In New York last October, Abbott was roundly condemned for a political attack on Kevin Rudd.

American Academic Clinton Fernandes said he created an image of

Political scientist Norman Ornstein surmised:

Clearly, Abbott has learned nothing from that humiliation three months ago.

Abbott then continued to spruik domestic politics — the commission of audit, paid parental leave, cutting the numbers of pensioners, and infrastructure, especially roads:

He concluded with a final hypocrisy — following his attack on Labor for spending so much on infrastructure during the GFC.

He gobsmacked anyone still listening with this:

[youtube]73f_UHTH4VU[/youtube]

Several questions arise.

Why such an appalling performance? Where are his advisers? Does he think he needs no advice? Or is the whole Coalition this amateurish and oafish — or worse?

And why, as ABC News highlighted, is he still battling Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard?

Does this reflect self-doubt about his capacity in the role? They had a vision for the nation; he does not. They had plans to improve the prospects for pensioners, students and people with disabilities; he does not. They nurtured the economy; he cannot. They had character, integrity and authority; he simply does not.

Perhaps it confirms that Abbott knows deep down that the 2013 ‘win’ was illegitimate — that it was secured only by deception and dishonesty.

Perhaps it is time for his party to consider the matter of leader.

What does that achieve though? You've failed to acknowledge my point that the number of people on long-term benefits INCREASED under the previous attempt at a WFD system.

People aren't learning anything useful in the real world by working in these organisations. It prevents them from getting more established work. It increases their expenses.

It's about nothing more than cheap labor for government funded organisations in order to allow the government to cut funding to them.

What? Nortorganic brought it up and I responded to that :-s

People don't learn anything useful anyway. What's your point?

So then we're brought back to it literally being done for nothing more than cheap labour. Morally reprehensible.

Would you have such a problem with it if their "wage" increased to say $17/hour and they had meal and travel expenses paid?

But now in more than tripling the expenses that the government would have, you've defeated the purpose of your point about cutting the welfare bill for this country.

This construction industry corruption stuff is juicy.

-PB

True. Seems like instead of paying them more that money should go to tertiary education.

Peter Cosgrove officially announced as the next Governor-General. Not surprised and not particularly fussed with the appointment.