Erwin, there may not be any point in flogging Centrelink …

Comment on A message from this vineyard: go horticulture! by Bob Durnan.

Erwin, there may not be any point in flogging Centrelink about this. As far as I can see, Centrelink staff are doing their job, which is to provide people with their welfare entitlements, and refer people who are unemployed and seemingly able to work to the privately-owned Job Services Australia (JSA) providers. This is the process decreed by successive governments. (Centrelink staff also give their clients access to current information about available jobs, and employers who are looking for workers. This is fine for highly motivated job seekers, but many unemployed are not ‘job-ready’).
The deal is supposed to be that if unemployed people don’t register with the JSA providers, then they won’t continue to get benefits from Centrelink.
The JSA providers tender to DEEWR for their contracts, which seem to be fairly lucrative, on the basis that they have the skills and determination to get unemployed people job ready and into available jobs. The JSA providers are responsible to DEEWR, not to Centrelink, which is marginalised in this loop.
If the unemployed people don’t co-operate with the JSA provider, or don’t accept jobs, then the JSA provider is supposed to report this to Centrelink, which cuts them off their benefits. Centrelink probably can’t physically take the unco-operative unemployed people to the grape farm at gun point, and chain them to the trellises without water until they pick the grapes. All it can do is to cut off the welfare supply.
What puzzles me, and what I think would be worth pursuing, is the issue of why DEEWR does not breach and penalise the JSA providers who seem to be entering contracts to get the unemployed into jobs, but then not carrying out their contracts. They seem to be not able, or maybe not willing, to do what is necessary to deliver the goods: they enter their contracts on the basis that they are expert wranglers, but then they seemingly fail to perform the most important wrangling on their agenda.
Does this failure include not being tough enough with their unemployed clients, i.e. not reporting quickly the failures to take up training and job opportunities?

Recent Comments by Bob Durnan

Architect of Katherine’s masterplan to be Alice council CEO
James (Posted June 6, 2019 at 8:14 am): How many parks in Alice Springs commemorate Aboriginal leaders or dignitaries?
Nothing against Father Smith, but couldn’t we consider looking collectively at setting some priorities before rushing in to barrack for our favourite project?


Price family were sole complainants against Cocking & Satour 
Conservative (posted May 1, 2019 at 9:19 am): what do you mean by ‘props to Erwin’? Stage ‘props’? It doesn’t make sense.


Road toll drops by half
Like InterestedDarwinObserver, I think Assistant Commissioner Beer’s claim is a somewhat questionable one.
Given that the majority of NT road deaths are normally the result of single vehicle roll-overs on remote roads, it is questionable whether more intensive traffic policing in Alice would necessarily produce this good result as claimed.
We would need a much bigger sample and more details of the individual accidents to really get an idea about what is actually going on here.


Massive horse deaths now a risk to humans
Hal, (Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:29 am): Don’t be so disingenuous. It is obvious from the article that CLC staff have been trying very hard to get permission to act.
They have now made their frustrations known to the relevant authorities, who are able to step in.
My point is that your criticism should have been aimed at those responsible (the traditional owners in question), not at the CLC as an organisation, as the staff are trying to do their job and get something done about the situation.
I was at both Mulga Bore and Angula a little over a week ago, and found very few people at Mulga, and none at Angula.
There were no dead horses that I saw, or smell of dead horses, around the houses then at either place, but there may have been some elsewhere. Of course the carcasses should be disposed of, wherever they are; that is what the writer and the CLC are trying to achieve.


Massive horse deaths now a risk to humans
Hal: How would the Land Council stand legally if it were to destroy the property of a set of traditional owners without their permission? The CLC does not own the horses.
They are either the property of individual traditional owners and traditional owner family groups, or of persons who have contracts with the TOs to allow their horses to be on the TOs’ land.
Or else they are the responsibility of the particular Land Trust trustees on whose land they are located.
Legally the CLC as a statutory body can only consult and advise the traditional owners, and act on their instructions. It cannot make decisions for them without their permission.


Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor