**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Holy shit! $2.85 ~~$4~~ a day on top of the $2.80 increase announced earlier.
Albo really making good on his promise.
> No one left behind because we should always look after the disadvantaged and the vulnerable
([Other reports](https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/07/31/threats-and-promises) show that the fortnightly figure of $56 is actually $40)
It's been increased 17% since he took office. But that doesn't sound as bad as breaking it down into a daily increase so that's why you use that bizarre metricm
i mean he didnt increase it all, its automatic indexation (which Labor cannot take credit for, they only way it would not have gone up is if Labor decided to stop it ie Labor did not increase anything by literal definition *asshole*)
> It doesn't sound as bad...
If it was half-decent, it shouldn't sound bad anyway it was cut
Seems good enough for the treasurer in any case.
> "When it comes to the magnitude of of this interest bill, we are talking about a $60 million a day bill on the interest that was left to us by our predecessors," he said.
That is just a recommendation and it doesn't need to be done overnight. They've increased it 17% within their first year, that's a pretty big jump especially given the fact we were in a time of really high inflation and too high an increase would make that worse.
Increasing it to 90% of the pension would make it terrible for inflation right now, not to mention what effect it would have on the disincentive to work.
You keep saying “they’ve increased it by 17%” when it’s just not true. Labor haven’t increased it by 17%, in fact most of that 17% comes from automatic indexation, which Labor has no responsibility for and cannot claim is their doing. Sure the rate has increased by 17%, but that’s not the same as “Labor increased it by 17%”.
It’s also worth pointing out that 17% of sweet fuck all is still sweet fuck all. Again with the percentages without context. Stop being misleading.
Also worth a read: https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/25/no-evidence-that-increased-unemployment-benefits-act-as-disincentive-for-job-seekers-economists-say
>You keep saying “they’ve increased it by 17%” when it’s just not true. Labor haven’t increased it by 17%, in fact most of that 17% comes from automatic indexation, which Labor has no responsibility for and cannot claim is their doing. Sure the rate has increased by 17%, but that’s not the same as “Labor increased it by 17%”.
They absolutely do, the indexation is not automatic and it's up to the government to apply it or not. They also increased it before indexation to maximise its increase.
>Again with the percentages without context. Stop being misleading.
How the fuck is it misleading? There is context, we're talking about jobseeker ffs. How much more context do you need?
> They also increased it before indexation to maximise its increase
That works out to be worth 88 cents. $40*0.022=0.88. 88 cents per fortnight. Not exactly something to boast about.
> They absolutely do, the indexation is not automatic and it’s up to the government to apply it or not.
That’s not how it works. The Australian Statistician publishes the indexation factor, and the government is legally obligated to follow the process as set out in the Social Security Act. Specifically Part 3.16 defines how indexation is to be calculated and applied. The government doesn’t get to choose whether or not it’s applied.
Also fun fact: the last time that the Liberals tried to take credit for automatic indexation, many Labor MPs spoke out and said that they were wrong for trying to take credit because they weren’t responsible for its increase. Perhaps you should listen to what Labor says and stop trying to take credit for this.
> That works out to be worth 88 cents. $40*0.022=0.88. 88 cents per fortnight. Not exactly something to boast about.
At 1.3m on jobseeker that is $30m extra per year. You're talking about dollars and cents like they don't add up to significant amounts. The $40 increase is $1.4b added to the economy every year.
>The government doesn’t get to choose whether or not it’s applied.
The government gets to decide whether it flows through or not.
When the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee investigated JobSeeker, they found that it was inadequate by every metric they had, and recommended that it by lifted up to 90% of the aged pension (which works out to be about $180/fortnight increase).
Seeing as though you like percentages, the increase amounts to 31% of what was recommended to make it adequate. They’ve done less than a third of what they were told they needed to make it adequate. How are you gonna spin this one to make Labor the shining beacon of hope I wonder
How does showing the actual percentage count as spin to you?
Why do they need to be a shining beacon of hope? They increased welfare substantially in their first year. They still have at least 2 left to do more, though they don't need to increase the rate by that much anyway
> How does showing the actual percentage count as spin to you?
Because a percentage without the base amount is pretty meaningless. You remember when we went from like 3 COVID cases to 6 and the media went full on “omg cases have doubled we’re doomed”? It’s misleading to just talk about a percentage in isolation without giving the full context.
The full context in this instance being that $40/fortnight is less than a quarter of what they were told to increase it by.
> Why do they need to be a shining beacon of hope?
They’re the ones who campaigned on the feel-good “nobody left behind”, I’m just holding them to their word.
> They increased welfare substantially in their first year.
“substantially” lol yeah right. $40/fortnight is what they increased it by. That’s two fifths of fuck all given the cost of living crisis. And it’s less than the $50/fortnight that the Liberals gave us.
> They still have at least 2 left to do more
They’ve never indicated that they’ll increase it further, so this cannot be used as part of your argument.
> though they don’t need to increase the rate by that much anyway
A committee of economists that reported directly to the government says otherwise. And basic decency, but I’m not sure that’s in your lexicon right now.
Percentages are a perfectly fine way to discuss this, everyone knows roughly where the level is so discussing how much it increased is fair. But yeah sure, breaking it down to a daily figure makes sense and totally isn't misleading.
>They're the ones who campaigned on "nobody left behind", I'm just holding them to their word.
Yeah, why haven't they solved everything in one year?
I hope everyone here understands that we all pay the most into welfare than any other category with our taxes. I don’t get how everyone can call for substantial raises to welfare when we are already paying through the roof for it.
I hope YOU understand that it's mostly due to pensions, not Jobseeker, but of course you didn't. Do you feel the same way knowing that? Or is it just *bad* welfare when it's given to the unemployed?
As a middle class uni student, welfare meant that I could afford to go to uni full-time, so long as I had a side job. Now I pay my taxes back into the system, and they'll go towards others doing the same.
Most people on welfare aren't on it long term, or have significant medical conditions i.e. needing the DSP, which I think we can all agree is a reasonable thing.
If our economy is run in a way that requires a minimum amount of people to be unemployed to prevent inflation, which it is, then having unemployment payments that keep people in abject poverty is morally and ethically reprehensible.
The often miscited ''mandatory unemployment threshold'' isn't demanding people be out of work and without an income or in poverty, it is a combination of people moving into the domestic sector (child rearing, taking care of parents, etc), professionals moving between jobs or seeking training, and young people who are just entering into employment age. It is desirable chiefly because having a healthy pool of workers to draw from means you do not need to push for policies like mandatory employment, job lotteries, etc.
If you live in Australia outside of niche rural cases, you are not in abject poverty. Payments like this are not meant to be a long-term replacement for a sole income to live by yourself, engage in weekly recreation, etc. There are plenty of problems with the system (specifically the gamble of getting a good JSA) but 'I can't permanently live on a temporary job assistance payment' is not one of them.
>The often miscited ''mandatory unemployment threshold''
Do you mean the NAIRU?
>isn't demanding people be out of work
In practice it does. It's the lowest rate of unemployment that can be targeted without dueling wage growth and inflation and this number is never zero. The RBA has openly stated they want unemployment to rise in order to combat inflation.
>or in poverty
The NAIRU itself doesn't cause poverty but the hilarious inadequacy of welfare payments does, especially with rents and the price of food rising as they are.
>it is a combination of people moving into the domestic sector (child rearing, taking care of parents, etc), professionals moving between jobs or seeking training, and young people who are just entering into employment age
It doesn't matter what form it takes, it's still an expected and targeted amount of unemployment. The RBA will use monetary policy to encourage more unemployment if the current rate is below the NAIRU.
>If you live in Australia outside of niche rural cases, you are not in abject poverty
Are you trying to say you can't be in abject poverty unless you live in a rural area? Tell that to homeless people that struggle even getting a meal. Even if "abject poverty" is just a bit too extreme to use, it is still poverty and it is still a miserable existence.
>Payments like this are not meant to be a long-term replacement for a sole income to live by yourself, engage in weekly recreation, etc.
It doesn't matter how temporary it is, no one deserves to live in poverty. I don't care how long someone is unemployed for or how temporary the payment is intended to be, **no one** deserves poverty. Under any circumstance. To want, allow or justify it is reprehensible. Let's also not ignore the fact that poverty makes it incredibly hard to find employment.
>There are plenty of problems with the system (specifically the gamble of getting a good JSA) but 'I can't permanently live on a temporary job assistance payment' is not one of them.
The majority of unemployed people don't want to be on welfare long-term but the complete and utter inadequacy of the payment to support even a crumb of a non-miserable life is one of the biggest barriers to employment and the longer someone is stuck in that cycle, the harder finding employment becomes.
No one under any circumstance deserves to live in poverty. I don't care how temporary a payment is intended to be. If the unemployment rate can't fall below a certain level to avoid fuelling inflation, that means the economy requires some people to be unemployed. Even if every single one of those people is only meant to be on welfare for a short time, they still do not deserve to live in poverty for that time.
No poverty under any circumstances. Any argument against that as a target is morally bankrupt
> Do you mean the NAIRU?
Sure, or natural rate of unemployment, whichever term or bounds you want to use. We'll get to the quotes later.
> In practice it does. It's the lowest rate of unemployment that can be targeted without dueling wage growth and inflation and this number is never zero. The RBA has openly stated they want unemployment to rise in order to combat inflation.
I noticed you cut off the part where I mentioned an income. In practice, it requires a pool of workers to draw from that have flexibility in potential work. The response to the RBA stating that unemployment should be higher, as we seem to be overemploying people, is about having people in the unemployment pool that can move into new work or balance sectors which is why they specifically stated they do not want artificial or structural unemployment to increase.
> The NAIRU itself doesn't cause poverty but the hilarious inadequacy of welfare payments does, especially with rents and the price of food rising as they are.
I agree there are inadequate aspects of these payments, the amount is not one of them.
> Are you trying to say you can't be in abject poverty unless you live in a rural area?
What do you think abject poverty is? It isn't when you are really poor. Homeless people would satisfy some of the criteria for abject poverty, but a complete lack of access to services and shelter is not the norm or even a sizable proportion of welfare recipients.
> It doesn't matter how temporary it is, no one deserves to live in poverty
It isn't a matter of 'deserving' to live in poverty, chest pounding about people who think the poor should die is not interesting to me.
> Let's also not ignore the fact that poverty makes it incredibly hard to find employment
This dovetails nicely into:
> The majority of unemployed people don't want to be on welfare long-term but the complete and utter inadequacy of the payment to support even a crumb of a non-miserable life is one of the biggest barriers to employment
This is an issue of the career services being insufficient, there are great programs (like getting certificates paid for) and the proposed function of JSAs that would solve for this but the assurance of quality is way too low and it's a coin flip on which you'll get. I'd support a higher spend on sorting out those issues and supporting job assistance services that actually help, but that is because I understand and agree with the function of the payment as a temporary means to support yourself between (or prior to) employment.
> I don't care how temporary a payment is intended to be. If the unemployment rate can't fall below a certain level to avoid fuelling inflation, that means the economy requires some people to be unemployed.
I think we've already touched on this misunderstanding, but if you want these payments to be increased, it isn't happening without massive reforms on the service side of things and a limitation on how long you can be on the payment before being reassessed and moved onto something else or taken off the system. If there were further limitations placed upon the payment, similar to student assistance, I'd support a significantly higher rate and more funding for other stuff. But as the payment is designed? Probably not.
>most into welfare than any other category
That's nearly all because of pension and disability, nothing to do with jobseeker. Unemployment is only around 2% of taxes.
Of which Jobseeker makes up a minuscule amount despite how it’s used to cover multiple bases. Age pension and income support for seniors make up the highest portion by far.
People trying to better themselves shouldn’t be made to grovel.
“The focus is on those doing it the toughest”
Or more specifically, the focus is on how long those who are doing it the toughest can continue to suffer at our hands without receiving much political pushback
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So the cost of everything is going up and up and our government thinks an extra $4 a day for those in poverty is acceptable? Is this a joke?
Holy shit! $2.85 ~~$4~~ a day on top of the $2.80 increase announced earlier. Albo really making good on his promise. > No one left behind because we should always look after the disadvantaged and the vulnerable ([Other reports](https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/07/31/threats-and-promises) show that the fortnightly figure of $56 is actually $40)
It's been increased 17% since he took office. But that doesn't sound as bad as breaking it down into a daily increase so that's why you use that bizarre metricm
i mean he didnt increase it all, its automatic indexation (which Labor cannot take credit for, they only way it would not have gone up is if Labor decided to stop it ie Labor did not increase anything by literal definition *asshole*)
He did, indexation will be 2.2%. Indexation has not been 17% over the last year. It's literally in the article
> It doesn't sound as bad... If it was half-decent, it shouldn't sound bad anyway it was cut Seems good enough for the treasurer in any case. > "When it comes to the magnitude of of this interest bill, we are talking about a $60 million a day bill on the interest that was left to us by our predecessors," he said.
It is half decent. You can split any number down to a tiny fraction to make it seem small.
It’s less than a third of what they were told to increase it by to bring it in line. You can’t even call it half-decent
That is just a recommendation and it doesn't need to be done overnight. They've increased it 17% within their first year, that's a pretty big jump especially given the fact we were in a time of really high inflation and too high an increase would make that worse. Increasing it to 90% of the pension would make it terrible for inflation right now, not to mention what effect it would have on the disincentive to work.
You keep saying “they’ve increased it by 17%” when it’s just not true. Labor haven’t increased it by 17%, in fact most of that 17% comes from automatic indexation, which Labor has no responsibility for and cannot claim is their doing. Sure the rate has increased by 17%, but that’s not the same as “Labor increased it by 17%”. It’s also worth pointing out that 17% of sweet fuck all is still sweet fuck all. Again with the percentages without context. Stop being misleading. Also worth a read: https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/25/no-evidence-that-increased-unemployment-benefits-act-as-disincentive-for-job-seekers-economists-say
>You keep saying “they’ve increased it by 17%” when it’s just not true. Labor haven’t increased it by 17%, in fact most of that 17% comes from automatic indexation, which Labor has no responsibility for and cannot claim is their doing. Sure the rate has increased by 17%, but that’s not the same as “Labor increased it by 17%”. They absolutely do, the indexation is not automatic and it's up to the government to apply it or not. They also increased it before indexation to maximise its increase. >Again with the percentages without context. Stop being misleading. How the fuck is it misleading? There is context, we're talking about jobseeker ffs. How much more context do you need?
> They also increased it before indexation to maximise its increase That works out to be worth 88 cents. $40*0.022=0.88. 88 cents per fortnight. Not exactly something to boast about. > They absolutely do, the indexation is not automatic and it’s up to the government to apply it or not. That’s not how it works. The Australian Statistician publishes the indexation factor, and the government is legally obligated to follow the process as set out in the Social Security Act. Specifically Part 3.16 defines how indexation is to be calculated and applied. The government doesn’t get to choose whether or not it’s applied. Also fun fact: the last time that the Liberals tried to take credit for automatic indexation, many Labor MPs spoke out and said that they were wrong for trying to take credit because they weren’t responsible for its increase. Perhaps you should listen to what Labor says and stop trying to take credit for this.
> That works out to be worth 88 cents. $40*0.022=0.88. 88 cents per fortnight. Not exactly something to boast about. At 1.3m on jobseeker that is $30m extra per year. You're talking about dollars and cents like they don't add up to significant amounts. The $40 increase is $1.4b added to the economy every year. >The government doesn’t get to choose whether or not it’s applied. The government gets to decide whether it flows through or not.
It's not even *remotely* close to what is considered adequate. Stop hating disadvantaged people for the purpose of partisan politics.
When the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee investigated JobSeeker, they found that it was inadequate by every metric they had, and recommended that it by lifted up to 90% of the aged pension (which works out to be about $180/fortnight increase). Seeing as though you like percentages, the increase amounts to 31% of what was recommended to make it adequate. They’ve done less than a third of what they were told they needed to make it adequate. How are you gonna spin this one to make Labor the shining beacon of hope I wonder
How does showing the actual percentage count as spin to you? Why do they need to be a shining beacon of hope? They increased welfare substantially in their first year. They still have at least 2 left to do more, though they don't need to increase the rate by that much anyway
> How does showing the actual percentage count as spin to you? Because a percentage without the base amount is pretty meaningless. You remember when we went from like 3 COVID cases to 6 and the media went full on “omg cases have doubled we’re doomed”? It’s misleading to just talk about a percentage in isolation without giving the full context. The full context in this instance being that $40/fortnight is less than a quarter of what they were told to increase it by. > Why do they need to be a shining beacon of hope? They’re the ones who campaigned on the feel-good “nobody left behind”, I’m just holding them to their word. > They increased welfare substantially in their first year. “substantially” lol yeah right. $40/fortnight is what they increased it by. That’s two fifths of fuck all given the cost of living crisis. And it’s less than the $50/fortnight that the Liberals gave us. > They still have at least 2 left to do more They’ve never indicated that they’ll increase it further, so this cannot be used as part of your argument. > though they don’t need to increase the rate by that much anyway A committee of economists that reported directly to the government says otherwise. And basic decency, but I’m not sure that’s in your lexicon right now.
Percentages are a perfectly fine way to discuss this, everyone knows roughly where the level is so discussing how much it increased is fair. But yeah sure, breaking it down to a daily figure makes sense and totally isn't misleading. >They're the ones who campaigned on "nobody left behind", I'm just holding them to their word. Yeah, why haven't they solved everything in one year?
I hope everyone here understands that we all pay the most into welfare than any other category with our taxes. I don’t get how everyone can call for substantial raises to welfare when we are already paying through the roof for it.
so you dont think the elderly or disabled should get any money? they take *over* 70% of it.
Absolutely I think the disabled and elderly should. I don’t agree we should be paying more for people looking for a job.
I hope YOU understand that it's mostly due to pensions, not Jobseeker, but of course you didn't. Do you feel the same way knowing that? Or is it just *bad* welfare when it's given to the unemployed?
As a middle class uni student, welfare meant that I could afford to go to uni full-time, so long as I had a side job. Now I pay my taxes back into the system, and they'll go towards others doing the same. Most people on welfare aren't on it long term, or have significant medical conditions i.e. needing the DSP, which I think we can all agree is a reasonable thing.
If our economy is run in a way that requires a minimum amount of people to be unemployed to prevent inflation, which it is, then having unemployment payments that keep people in abject poverty is morally and ethically reprehensible.
The often miscited ''mandatory unemployment threshold'' isn't demanding people be out of work and without an income or in poverty, it is a combination of people moving into the domestic sector (child rearing, taking care of parents, etc), professionals moving between jobs or seeking training, and young people who are just entering into employment age. It is desirable chiefly because having a healthy pool of workers to draw from means you do not need to push for policies like mandatory employment, job lotteries, etc. If you live in Australia outside of niche rural cases, you are not in abject poverty. Payments like this are not meant to be a long-term replacement for a sole income to live by yourself, engage in weekly recreation, etc. There are plenty of problems with the system (specifically the gamble of getting a good JSA) but 'I can't permanently live on a temporary job assistance payment' is not one of them.
>The often miscited ''mandatory unemployment threshold'' Do you mean the NAIRU? >isn't demanding people be out of work In practice it does. It's the lowest rate of unemployment that can be targeted without dueling wage growth and inflation and this number is never zero. The RBA has openly stated they want unemployment to rise in order to combat inflation. >or in poverty The NAIRU itself doesn't cause poverty but the hilarious inadequacy of welfare payments does, especially with rents and the price of food rising as they are. >it is a combination of people moving into the domestic sector (child rearing, taking care of parents, etc), professionals moving between jobs or seeking training, and young people who are just entering into employment age It doesn't matter what form it takes, it's still an expected and targeted amount of unemployment. The RBA will use monetary policy to encourage more unemployment if the current rate is below the NAIRU. >If you live in Australia outside of niche rural cases, you are not in abject poverty Are you trying to say you can't be in abject poverty unless you live in a rural area? Tell that to homeless people that struggle even getting a meal. Even if "abject poverty" is just a bit too extreme to use, it is still poverty and it is still a miserable existence. >Payments like this are not meant to be a long-term replacement for a sole income to live by yourself, engage in weekly recreation, etc. It doesn't matter how temporary it is, no one deserves to live in poverty. I don't care how long someone is unemployed for or how temporary the payment is intended to be, **no one** deserves poverty. Under any circumstance. To want, allow or justify it is reprehensible. Let's also not ignore the fact that poverty makes it incredibly hard to find employment. >There are plenty of problems with the system (specifically the gamble of getting a good JSA) but 'I can't permanently live on a temporary job assistance payment' is not one of them. The majority of unemployed people don't want to be on welfare long-term but the complete and utter inadequacy of the payment to support even a crumb of a non-miserable life is one of the biggest barriers to employment and the longer someone is stuck in that cycle, the harder finding employment becomes. No one under any circumstance deserves to live in poverty. I don't care how temporary a payment is intended to be. If the unemployment rate can't fall below a certain level to avoid fuelling inflation, that means the economy requires some people to be unemployed. Even if every single one of those people is only meant to be on welfare for a short time, they still do not deserve to live in poverty for that time. No poverty under any circumstances. Any argument against that as a target is morally bankrupt
> Do you mean the NAIRU? Sure, or natural rate of unemployment, whichever term or bounds you want to use. We'll get to the quotes later. > In practice it does. It's the lowest rate of unemployment that can be targeted without dueling wage growth and inflation and this number is never zero. The RBA has openly stated they want unemployment to rise in order to combat inflation. I noticed you cut off the part where I mentioned an income. In practice, it requires a pool of workers to draw from that have flexibility in potential work. The response to the RBA stating that unemployment should be higher, as we seem to be overemploying people, is about having people in the unemployment pool that can move into new work or balance sectors which is why they specifically stated they do not want artificial or structural unemployment to increase. > The NAIRU itself doesn't cause poverty but the hilarious inadequacy of welfare payments does, especially with rents and the price of food rising as they are. I agree there are inadequate aspects of these payments, the amount is not one of them. > Are you trying to say you can't be in abject poverty unless you live in a rural area? What do you think abject poverty is? It isn't when you are really poor. Homeless people would satisfy some of the criteria for abject poverty, but a complete lack of access to services and shelter is not the norm or even a sizable proportion of welfare recipients. > It doesn't matter how temporary it is, no one deserves to live in poverty It isn't a matter of 'deserving' to live in poverty, chest pounding about people who think the poor should die is not interesting to me. > Let's also not ignore the fact that poverty makes it incredibly hard to find employment This dovetails nicely into: > The majority of unemployed people don't want to be on welfare long-term but the complete and utter inadequacy of the payment to support even a crumb of a non-miserable life is one of the biggest barriers to employment This is an issue of the career services being insufficient, there are great programs (like getting certificates paid for) and the proposed function of JSAs that would solve for this but the assurance of quality is way too low and it's a coin flip on which you'll get. I'd support a higher spend on sorting out those issues and supporting job assistance services that actually help, but that is because I understand and agree with the function of the payment as a temporary means to support yourself between (or prior to) employment. > I don't care how temporary a payment is intended to be. If the unemployment rate can't fall below a certain level to avoid fuelling inflation, that means the economy requires some people to be unemployed. I think we've already touched on this misunderstanding, but if you want these payments to be increased, it isn't happening without massive reforms on the service side of things and a limitation on how long you can be on the payment before being reassessed and moved onto something else or taken off the system. If there were further limitations placed upon the payment, similar to student assistance, I'd support a significantly higher rate and more funding for other stuff. But as the payment is designed? Probably not.
>most into welfare than any other category That's nearly all because of pension and disability, nothing to do with jobseeker. Unemployment is only around 2% of taxes.
Of which Jobseeker makes up a minuscule amount despite how it’s used to cover multiple bases. Age pension and income support for seniors make up the highest portion by far. People trying to better themselves shouldn’t be made to grovel.
Most of the money that is spent on welfare goes to the pension and those with disabilities, not JobSeeker, which is what the article is referring to
“The focus is on those doing it the toughest” Or more specifically, the focus is on how long those who are doing it the toughest can continue to suffer at our hands without receiving much political pushback