Return to the ways of Centrelink  Return to poems on unemployment / employment   Poems on specific subjects and themes   Return to home page  

Poems on the themes of the poor in Australia

    A few personal thoughts on the poems / skits /quotes etc, in this” unemployment" section.

The poems / skits and quote in this section would likely not be of interest to children. Often they are to do with the present rules and laws of Centrelink. They are often about ‘the unemployed’ and about the working conditions of Australians, especially that of the lower class worker.

Throughout my site < www.poetry.net.au > I have often prided myself on the idea that I have not necessarily taken a point of view. Or to put this in another way, I have tried not to present a 'specific point of view’ and expressed it overtly in an opinionated way. Therefore, I hope and trust that I have generally written in a way so that indeed others may see their own angle or view. But alas in saying this, it seems that (expression of 'views' are an inevitable place in any communication.) In contrast to this approach, I must confess that the particular collection of poems and skits entitled; Poems on the themes of the poor in Australia, do express overt opinions and ‘points of views,’ for I see an ever increasing poorer treatment dished out towards the less privilege in Australia, and I sense that few people seem to acknowledge this as a ever growing problem for Australia. Of particular concern to me is in how the 'unemployed' are treated.

In writing about the unemployed, I am personally centered on the idea that many people have not actually been unemployed, at least of late, and perhaps through this lack experience and knowledge, many also lack understanding of what it is like to be unemployed in today’s world. Also due to this lack of “first hand experience,” I may begin to understand how the reader of this particular section might interpret what lies in the following poems and skits etc, as perhaps ‘radical,’ or even that they are misunderstood. And so perhaps this is actually the ultimate reason for speaking bluntly in the way I have, for I personally see a divide occurring in Australia where, many people do not know of the cultural world of their fellow citizens who are unemployed or less privileged.

If this is so, (and I believe it is the case,) then this in effect is a classic case of the fundamental dynamics regarding the divides between the 'rich and the poor.’ Where 'one' culture is divided into cultures, essentially through a lack of perception and knowledge of each other.

I believe that there is unfairness in the rules and laws pertaining to the unemployed. It is also my sincerest belief that if people feel unfairly treated, eventually they act accordingly. That being; people will tend to act dishonestly - as they in turn feel they are acted upon, - resulting in at times people turning to crime. The two issues of “unemployment and crime” then are in my mind integrated, but not necessarily because the unemployed turn to crime to make money, but because the unemployed can be made to feel ‘not a part of society’ and this is a sure recipe for ‘crime making.’ To me the real wealth of any country is in whether people, - all people - feel a part of society and that they can feel that they truly belong? Of course, “not feeling a part of society” can come about via many means, but in the case of the unemployed there is ample reason, - as will be discussed below - why the unemployed may feel rejected and even be correct in this assessment.

In my poems I am wishing to address this, 'perceptual divide.' And through my poems hopefully show a little of the world of the unemployed, that is; as I see it. For as I said above, I see in my 'minds eye' an Australia that is continually dividing itself into the horrific categories of; 'those who have / and those who have not,' and I am dearly wishing to address what I see as “the grave possibility that Australian will soon see on its streets "bums," or those ‘we’ Australian’s call, “homeless.”

I might assume that the average Australian does not want to see this happen, but I would suggest to anyone not wishing this to be the case that already there are in place, many many rules and laws of Centrelink – that if enacted – have plenty of scope to create “homelessness.” If you sincerely think that this is not the case, then I would invite you to study the laws of Centrelink - and especially those that pertain to the Unemployed. That is, if you can find them. I myself have tried on many occasions to find that comprehensive set of laws that relate to the unemployed, but have failed. However it seems that authorities do have ease access to these laws, but not the public. Adding weight to the proverb, “knowledge is power,” and yet if you do find them, you might find yourself seriously challenged to keep abreast of there constant changes and there complex wordings.

Centrelink can (and does) breach people for two months without any income. On top of this, Centrelink has the power to consecutively breach someone if they do not comply with any rule they have. This in my view amounts to a system geared up to create ‘homelessness.’ Something I say is “no good for anyone regardless of how people might view the unemployed as “no good dole bludgers.”

Even in the penal system, (which is the only other institution that has its clients boxed within an institution and forced to comply with grave consequences) even here, people are treated more fairly than people on Centrelink can. A criminal in this country can feel safe in the idea that at least they have food and shelter, and this includes criminals of the worse kind. But no such a comfort exists for the unemployed. And they say that “poverty is not a crime.” One has to wonder!!!

And so the dole ‘bludger card’ may be played with extreme consequences. It is a card that seems to trump all others. And I say that these consequences do not merely just affect a dissenting unemployed person in being breached, but also their families and indeed; society at large. Yet in saying this, I am keenly aware of the many rationales that speak in favor of harsh laws imposed upon the unemployed. Indeed I believe I am painfully aware of these kinds of views and it is precisely in this very awareness of these views that I am inspired to write, - as if on behalf of the unemployed – saying in general terms and in effect, “there must be a better way, a less harsh way.”

And what is this “better way?” I believe it starts with attempting to see the better side of people, that indeed people, (nearly all people want to contribute) but for one reason or another find it difficult.

In terms of the structure of the Centrelink system and its associated institutions regarding the compulsory ‘work of the dole’ system, I see in my minds eye institutions essentially acting with their own interest at heart. And so this is an issue of structure and I would like to address this now. In the normal world, - in the normally operating capitalist system, - people seek out labor and products because ‘they want to,’ it is total a free choice. Businesses therefore must compete, - and compete strongly - in order to get your business. But in the ‘work for the dole programs,’ a person joins a particular institution not because they want too, but because they must to survive.

The receivers of this free labor (both the ‘work for the dole providers’ / and the ‘work for the dole’ actual receivers of labor, (the many non voluntary and often Christian organizations) have in effect, no internal motivation to better their programs. Indeed; it may even be reasoned that they may run the benefits of their programs down, for they indeed are not subject to the normal commercial rules of “supply and demand.” It is a complete monopoly. There is then, ‘no integral internal incentive.’

A “case worker” (or a “care worker” as they are sometimes called in the Centrelink system,) may also offer you any job they choose, one that is of course suitable to you according to law, “suitability” however is a subjective term. And if you refuse, you are breached. This means you will loose two month income. And yet within the dynamics of the “care providers” there is a hidden capitalistic incentive, for they may receive a bonus for placing you in a job, that is, “any job.” But this capitalistic incentive is the accept ion to the rule, for one must not forget, you did not truly voluntarily choose the service in the first place, (you were forced,) therefore there need not be (for the Centrelink system) any motivation to keep you happy and therefore keep your business.

Indeed; part of the system, (the official Centrelink part) I suggest is secretly operating on the premise that they don’t actually want your business. What government seeks to raise the number of unemployed persons? Every unemployed person knows in their heart that the government doesn’t want to know about them, but alas, they must. That is, at least for the time being. Even this might change in the future should the ever increasing ‘poor treatment of the unemployed’ continue on its merry slide downwards. One need not have a computer to predict this happening, and so I say again, Australia is in all sorts of ways is heading down the path of having numerous homeless people.

And then we might say, O what a strange mixture of capitalist and non capitalistic notions is the Centrelink system.

It must be said that these allied institutions (the ‘work for the dole’ aspects of the Centrelink systems are in fact, ‘private enterprises.’ So in effect there is a conglomerate of ‘business models’ operating all at once in the Centrelink system.

·        Centrelink itself is a purely government affair.

·        Yet the ‘works for the dole’ providers are private enterprises and the

·         people they supply free labor too are; charitable organizations. Yet another model.

All therefore have different agenda’s, different motivations, indeed, different mandates in how they ultimately act and behave. But you, the unemployed are just one person, stuck I say in between conflicting messages. And to top all of this off, is the repeated assertion by the system that you actually choose things, exemplified in the ‘contract’ system. Blind Freddy could see that the notion of “contract” and its association with “choosing” is a smoke screen, indeed a deceptive trick. This façade of “choice” for the unemployed causes considerable frustration for the unemployed, but most importantly I say it exist to keep you, “the employed” kept in the dark about what is really going on. And indeed it works. It works so well that one can easily draw parallels to china’s sometimes use of the word or term, “re-education.” We say, “What’s in a name,” apparently everything? “Choice” regarding any request from the Centrelink system is nonsense.

So O what a strange mix of capitalist / and non capitalistic models is the Centrelink system in total. And you can be sure that the actual unemployed are the meat in the sand witch here. Such is the way when free labor and forced labor is involved; everyone it seems wants to be on it, everyone but the unemployed that is!

In the setting that the ‘work for the dole’ providers are private, yet still do not need to strive for your business for you are force, this means that there is the ever present potential of these institutions not offering a quality service or product. Not because - per say - the people working in these institutions are bad people, but because their clients are forced to attend and in this dynamic alone the stage is set to not come up with the appropriate goods necessarily.

There is then no semblance of ‘competition’ built into the system. In this setting I suggest, anything is possible. In this setting - with its lack of competition, - all manner of secrecy and non accountability is theoretically possible. For from the point of view of the unemployed, “who would dare bite the hand that feeds them, the only hand that feeds them, ‘they’ the unemployed cannot be expected to be the one’s to present the necessary checks and balances!”

And so I might exclaim that the system inherently has no essential checks and balances. Not unless you want to count the likes of activist. But a society cannot be built upon the work of ‘the activists’ alone; it must also be built upon good and ‘just’ laws. The system then I suggest, because of it’s conglobation of ‘capitalist’ and ‘non capitalist’ attributes and it’s ability to shuffle responsibility around as it wishes, is totally open to corruptness and in contemplating this do remember; this is the only system we have.

But more to the point, the criticism of the system and its compulsory nature in the ‘work of the dole’ scheme means that, the actual nuts and bolts of the problem of unemployment are not - and need not - be addressed by government. Governments therefore may continue to not offer reasonable skills training to the unemployed. Why should they, what forces are brought to bear upon them to improve!? Very little I suggest.

The governments position on unemployment - and also on all the social dynamics that relate to this group of its citizens (the unemployed,) need not be addressed, for, I am arguing that the compulsory system of ‘forced work for the dole’ ensures that one of the actual creators of the problem of unemployment is holding everything in a status quo position. Indeed we may express this once again by saying; the force ‘work for the dole’ programs are hiding and preventing the real issue from being seen and therefore addressed.

The ‘labors party’ and Kym Beasley’s has for quite a while been expressing the view that “Australia needs to be more skilled.” But if he was to truly honor this position, he would need to address the “compulsory nature of the ‘work for the dole,’” indeed eliminate it so that free enterprise, (true free enterprise) reigns in the Centrelink system and the ‘work for the dole programs.’ This would necessarily mean abolishing the compulsory ‘work for the dole.’

Is the labor party willing to do this? I doubt it. But why I ask? The answer lies in the many benefits that many parties or entities are deriving from the ‘compulsory system.’ As I said above, even the government derives benefits from the compulsory system in the sense that it does not have to exert itself quite so hard in seeking a long term solution to unemployment. For once a society has free labor it has massive control over the whole labor force. It is a situation of, “do this job, accept these menial conditions or be forced to undergo free labor.”

In all of man’s history, it is littered with beurocracies or political regimes that seek to enslave people. Indeed it is also littered with wars that seek to eliminate this, the American civil war being one example. But alas when “free labor” is sought to be extracted within the ‘work of the dole’ programs, few see the relevance of the exploitation of people’s labor. Perhaps this is because in the compulsory ‘work for the dole’ programs, it happens to be the mildest of the “enforced labor” kind. Or perhaps it is because people don’t actually see it as “enforced labor” because ‘the enforced’ are treated with the privilege of eating and having shelter with their minimal wage. But I say, even slaves have to be fed and sheltered. What ever way you look at things, it seems obvious - by the acceptance of this enforced ‘work for the dole’ system that, - the association of “forced labor” / or that of slavery are not made in any shape of form, due to this or that reasoning. My simple point here is that, any hint of “forced labor” should be a matter of deep concern for society at the very least.

Also of concern are the blurring lines that are being drawn between state and religion. Oddly mankind has worked diligently for many hundreds of years to make a division between state and religion. Such a move is not condescending to either of them, but merely recognition that there should be a ‘divide’ for a healthy nation. Yet within the mere space of fifteen years or so, many religious groups are willingly accepting free labor from the state through the ‘work of the dole’ programs. Do remember, they accept this labor in full knowledge that if the ‘work for the dole’ receipt plays up, or simply doesn’t come in, they will need to report this to Centrelink knowing the consequences are a breach and two months suspension of pay at the very least.

By accepting labor in this context - and in the context of the ‘work for the dole system,’ - the lines are blurred between state and religion. Religious voluntary organizations such as the Saint Vincent de Paul and many others, readily accept free labor supplied to them via the ‘work for the dole’ programs. Even organizations that are world wide known for their autonomy and impartiality such as the ‘Red Cross’ even in times of war accept force labor supplied to them by the government.

Of course they might all argue that they are not involved in a forced labor program, it is simply a normal pay situation. Yet the law is only prepared to pay a ‘work for the dole’ participant approximately two dollars an hour for their labor and one must never forget the consequences of not accepting this labor situation. Hopefully, even those poor starving kids in India or wherever are being paid more than two dollars an hour!

At any rate, the argument is being made of how - in a very short space of time, - church and state are being brought together in a dubious fashion. In the light of all these “business interactions” occurring between state and religion, one could hardly argue that state and religion / and the dividing lines between them are not blurred. At least they are blurred when it appears to suits both of them. Indeed in a very short space of time it seems that Christianity has been bought out by state. Like the unemployed themselves, many religious organizations are now in a position of being pawns in the game of the unemployment problem. If this is not the case, then surely the idea of having church and state separated is questionable. One may even question the ‘Christ like’ attributes of these organizations, for surely Christ would not be a part of such a monopoly over people.

But to be fair, I am certain that many Christian organizations do not see their participation in the ‘work for the dole’ programs as I have portrayed them. In thinking this, I do have to wonder, why not!?

One may wonder on a philosophical level why societies have unemployment in the first place!? Many simply answer this question by saying, “it’s because there are lazy people in this world.” I personally do not buy outright this simplistic answer, instead my mind moves to idea’s that seem to suggest that someone is actually benefiting from unemployment, a sentiment of course, every good and righteous politician and even employee would deny emphatically. When we speak of “the unemployed as pawns in the game,” I think we refer to the sub plot, the political sub plot that underlines unemployment.

There will likely always be ‘the unemployed,’ my concern is not so much in how many unemployed persons there are, thought of course this is somewhat important, but in how the unemployed are treated. My concern is also not only in how the unemployed are treated, but in how this affects the entire work force, especially the lower class work force.

And so to come full circle on the many points made above, the crux of the matter lies in the compulsory nature of the ‘work for the dole system’ and, the subtle message given to the unemployed in that; “it is a dire, take it or leave it situation and that there are no in between.” The crux of the matter is in how these people feel.

If there were to be a non compulsory ‘work for the dole programs’ everything must - or would need - to change. ‘Work for the dole’ suppliers, - including the part that government play - would naturally make sure that the programs are indeed something that others would be interested in, programs that are for sure, beneficial and productive for all. I am not saying that some of the programs in the compulsory ‘work for the dole system are not productive, but I am saying that this cannot - and is not - ensured as the system works presently with its compulsory structure.

To many, I may be appearing to speak in a manner as if to be perceived as overly idealistic, but I say, “if the programs truly did offer benefits and advantages to the unemployed, / and if they were not compulsory, the unemployed would be clamoring over each other to be accepted into the programs.” Yet this point - as I perceive it - is without merit to many people. And so in saying this I hear in my mind many people proclaiming, “yer … but a non compulsory system wouldn’t work, there are too many lazy good for nothing dole blunders out there wanting to do nothing, no one would want to take up the offer anyway.” To these people I simply reply; “what little faith you have in people!” There are simply not, millions of potential people desperately seeking to ‘do nothing.’ There may be a few, but for the most part, there are only those people finding it hard to get along. When all is said and done, our views on “the unemployed” - and how to treat them - are based on our view of humanity and of ‘human nature.’

In this essay, it is not my place to attempt to write optimistically about human nature, or at least appear to be writing optimistically, or even appear to be presenting comprehensively the, theoretical possibilities that people do indeed, want to contribute. This task is a massive one indeed. And yet, somehow the issue of “how to treat the unemployed” seems to come down to people’s vision of what they think of others, what they think of ‘work’ and what ‘work is’ for the individual and for society. Actually the governing premises that relate to how we wish to treat the unemployed come down to; what we think of life and of humanity. It is with regret that I cannot focus this essay on issues that relate to why it is so very important to ‘give people a chance.’ To assume ‘the better’ in people as opposed to the worse. The compulsory system I suggest does - and infers inherently - the latter. 

In speaking against the compulsory nature of the ‘work of the dole’ programs and in criticizing it, I merely see a place - or a potential - where society may relax its pressure upon itself and the few unemployed who must - it seems - inevitable bear the brunt of societies pressures. And of course the wisdom of this notion of “easing up” lies in convincing others that a more idealistic notion is not only right, but actually profitable, even economically profitable.

For some this seems an impossible task to relay, for to so many, ‘to struggle’ is a mandate seemingly ordained by god himself? For in people’s reasoning in how to treat the unemployed, people naturally tend to think, “Well I’ve got it hard, so should everyone else!” Here is another reason why the lowness of the minimal wage has an effect upon the unemployed. It is not just ‘the rich’ who are seen to be hard on the underprivileged, but the poor themselves. The poor tend to be convicted with the ideology that, it’s easier being poor if someone else is even poorer.

Yet in speaking about the poor in the unemployed, we are talking about an income of about two hundred dollars a week. It is well under half the minimal wage, yet these people still have to survive. Notions of the unemployed as “having it good” are simply unfounded. But none the less, they are still the focus of people who are poor and feel cheated in life themselves.

And the media is all too willing to play up to these kinds of sentiment by using the insidious ideology of the; archetypal dole bludger. How many times are they prepared to run down the street chasing a long term unemployed person asking him “why he doesn’t work?” How many times are unemployed people shown surfing at Bondi beach!? When I see such extreme presentations, it reminds me of a picture I once saw with Jews eating grass. Hitler apparently thought it was a good idea to show how inhuman the Jews were and how they behaved like cattle. What of course he didn’t show was the fact that these people were starving, starving because of his actions. What of course is behind this kind of imagery is a fully blown ‘proper gander machine.’

In seeming defense of people’s harsh stance upon the unemployed, often people turn to the age old philosophy that says, “well if you live in Africa, or in Indian, or even the United States, you wouldn’t even get even this much!” What do you say to such arguments, but, “O you have a point there” and then think to yourself how strange this reasoning really is!

There is always worse in the world, why then contrast your reasoning for something with the very worse. Could it not simply be the case that such countries have entirely different circumstances and entirely different cultures? Could it also simply be the case that these countries are wrong? Or could this statement be not covertly saying, “I want this country to be like America, or India, or Africa.” “By all means” I might answer; “we may be what ever we want to be!”

But morality - and the way we treat the poor - is ultimately determined by the economic and social structure of a country. I happen to think that Australia can easily afford to “ease up” on its harsh treatment of the unemployed. Indeed I also happen to think that if it does not do this, it will be detrimental to the entire society. I mention “bums” or the “homeless” in this paper; this is just one consequence of not looking after the poor. There are as well, many more indirect consequences that relate to this one issue of homelessness.

I also happen to think that Australia is poised on the brink of deciding which way it wants to go regarding the treatment it gives to the poor. Go the wrong way and surely you end up with a society like America with its numerous homeless people, and also having no less unemployment than anyone else. Go the wrong way and we may end up like a society such as Singapore, with its lack of unemployment altogether, but also with its highly regimented and politically subdued and even oppressed people. Singapore lives under a dictator. I wonder how the Australian ‘spirit of larrikinism’ would react to that!? The point is; Australia is its own place, / its own culture. And the point is also that; Australia sits at a precipice in regards to what ‘other country’ it is going to be tending to look like in the future.  

Once again, if your view of ‘the unemployed’ is that they are lazy bums, and your view of how people actually contribute to society is limited to a conventional work model only, then there is no reason to think anything other than creating a society built of sheer force. I happen to think other, and in my discussions above I have attempted to elucidate the negativity of the compulsory system and the benefits of having a more open and accountable system in a non compulsory ‘work for the dole’ system.

Personally it pains me to meet people who speak of Centrelink as if it was “the enemy.” Yet at the same time I am flawed when I hear these same people’s tell their personal stories of how they were unfairly treated by Centrelink. Centrelink is not the enemy of the people. Indeed, the basic underlying principles and the reason for Centrelink are about seeking to offer assistance to those in need. Centrelink then potentially represents the very best of a civilized and progressive society. It is precisely with this in mind that ‘I’ am concern (and I encourage you to be concern to how) this intuition actually operates. If it falls down in its treatment of the less advantaged, then surely we must all inevitably suffer.

In encapsulating the themes above I may say to anyone, the next time you are robbed, or mugged, or the next time you see the crime rate or youth suicide statistics rise, instead of merely thinking about the way wood individual, think a little about society, think about the systems at play that you yourself might not be exposed too.  

This essay began by asserting that there are growing cultural and economic divisions and splits occurring between the rich and 'rich and poor' in this country. And I suggest that of all these “cultural divides” and their intensity, it is no greater felt than with ‘the unemployed.’

Indeed in a very pragmatic way, the unemployed do not strictly live in a democracy where freedom is the essential fundamental of their life. Unemployed people tend to live in a two part culture; one that is democratic, (the one that employed people are living under,) and the other - regarding their dealings with Centrelink – is more like a negative version of communism state, a situation where the ‘feel of dictatorship’ is the order of the day.

I say this in consideration to the gravity of consequences incurred should any of the many Centrelink rules be broken by the unemployed. In breaking any rule, the unemployed can be - and are - unduly put upon in a dictatorial way.

In my view - and in regards to the ever increasing pressure put upon the unemployed; - Australia is positioning itself to be, not so much the "lucky country" it prides itself on. In terms of the entire history of Australia, Australia is poised at a position where it must, (as nearly every other country in the world must,) deal with the growing issue of ‘labor cost’ and the exploitation of peoples work efforts.

I believe that at the very root of this phenomenon in (the attempts at lowering of the minimal wage and conditions,) is a situation that not only affecting low wage earners, but also affects the dynamics of how the unemployed, / the pensioner / the sick and many other dependent minority groups are treated. Also in turn I say, if the conditions of these minority group falls, / so must the minimal wage and condition. It is illogical to think that the two are not interwoven. Indeed I suggest they interact and even mirror each other.

For example, if at any point the conditions of the unemployed become actually better than those in the lower working class, many may choose to be unemployed. In being acutely aware of this, it seems that the government therefore seeks to make the conditions of the unemployed harsher, - whilst at the same time, - diminishing the conditions of the lower paid work force. It seems that as long as there is a significant difference, (regardless of whether this difference has dropped for all,) the government is happy, for in this kind of dynamics, the government need not strive for a better situation for all.

This however is a description of a society being put under greater and greater pressure and hardship. It may well be the case (theoretically) that the opposite is true, where the minimal conditions and wages are improved, creating exactly the same phenomenon of a “difference” between the unemployed and the low paid worker, a situation where people would gladly choose employment over unemployment. But sadly such is not the case I argue. The government then chooses to take the negative approach, and we seem all to willing to choose to let them do so.

This government (and likely any governments succeeding this government) is likely to continue the push towards free enterprise bargaining, for in this practice there is a much greater likeliness that the minimal wage is kept precisely at that, ‘minimal.’ And through this the government is able to exert harsher and harsher conditions upon the unemployed so as to ensure that the statue quo of ‘low wages and conditions’ stay where they are. Each is played off to each other. My point is that it is “the difference” of the conditions of the unemployed and the lower class workers which is driving government law making. As long as there is a difference, you may lower both and you have the same difference and also a, greater capacity to control both.

Therefore, I suggest to all those being obliged to engage in a ‘one to one negotiations with their boss over pay and conditions’ that if they fail in their negotiations, they also pave the way for harsher conditions in being unemployed. Something they will directly and immediately be affected by should the boss decide to sack them without notice, which is now - under the I R laws - easier to do. And most certainly they would want to be ‘sacked,’ as opposed to telling the boss “to stick it” or quitting, for this by law would incur a financial penalty from Centrelink.

“Free speech” these days in Australia seems to be a dwindling theoretical concept only, not an actual one. Free speech within the ‘enterprise bargaining system’ I suggest is a fur fey, / a contradiction in terms, especially in the light of how Centrelink will treat you should you should you actually decide that the job and the conditions the boss has to offer are ‘not for you.’

Personally, in considering the many harsh laws that are presently being imposed - not only upon the unemployed - but also on the lower class worker these days, I can only scratch my head in amazement in the thought that, people still tend to believe that the poor laws within the Centrelink system towards the unemployed will not directly / and indirectly affect their employment conditions adversely. Indeed, on the opposite end of chain of the pecking order in society, it is also true these days that within the new I R laws  ‘most employed persons’ are just one office meeting away from being unemployed. Why then is there so much apathy, one has to scratch one’s head and wonder!!!

Sadly, from the point of view of government, ‘labor’ is tending more and more to be viewed as simply a commodity, not unlike any other commodity or product. Yet we are dealing with people here, not objects. It seems that (from a government point of view,) it is quite easy for government to take a clinical and dogmatic approach regarding what is the right and or what is the wrong treatment of the unemployed and the worker. Yet surely from the point of view of a healthy society, labor and labor cost are essentially “social issue” affecting those people who do not offer labor, and not just those who are directly affected by poor working conditions and unreasonable low wages.

In regards to that part of my site that deals with issues of Centrelink - and it’s treatment of the unemployed – it is not meant to be perceived as a; “lets knock Centrelink just for fun site,” - although I may accept that this may be perceived at times by some, depending on one’s founding premises about work and one’s place in the world as it relates to ‘work.’

As mentioned above, I believe that 'Centrelink' is one of the most fundamental and important institutions in Australia at this time and will continue to be so into the future. I ask myself; why is this so? I believe it is because the issues of ‘labor’ and of ‘labor cost’ will continue to be a huge issue for man kind for many more years to come. I even suggest that this is one of the most major issues of our era. An issue rating in importance with issues such as war, / or the general economic and social wealth of a country. Indeed, even in consideration of the magnitude of the issue of war, / the issue of poverty, / and the treatment of the poor I say, all seem to work together ultimately creating the world we live in.

It was once said, "THE next world war will be over water," a remark by the former Vice-President of the World Bank, Ismail Serageldin, some years ago. In the same kind of way I assert, unusual kinds of ‘battle grounds’ are emerging in this new world regarding “how we treat those who apparently do not contributing to the status quo regarding work.” These people are the unemployed / the sick, / the pensioner. Therefore I ask a critical question of the many laws in Centrelink; “is it making or breaking the poorer people of this country?” Indeed, (and unfortunately) I answer this question with the answer, “sometimes yes.”

I have personally known quite a few good people who feel they have all but been ‘broken by the system.’ And I do not mean just ‘mentally’ but also ‘physically.’ Have you met such people? If not I suggest you may need to get out a bit more! I suggest to you that they could well be your brother or mother, or whoever. I might also suggest likewise to the Prime Minister of this country John Howard, who seems to be spear heading so many harsh laws upon the underprivileged. “Get out more John and mixed with the people of Australia, all of the people of Australia. Do a compulsory ‘work for the dole program,’ or / work in a factory for a while, maybe then you may come to understand that there are always two sides to every story.”

I suggest to you that many people are too afraid of speaking up about how they feel they are poorly treated by the Centrelink system. This phenomenon is not dissimilar to a mentally ill person keeping to themselves the status of their ailment. There is a strong social stigma against speaking against society if you happen to be perceived by others as “one of its problems.”

I ask you, is the picture I am painting of Australia ‘the Australia you really want to live in? I also ask you, are you so confident of your knowledge regarding the many rules pertaining to the unemployed and the poorer people of Australia to know - for sure - the facts? And in learning more about these facts, would this make any difference to your position on things? So many questions, / so many answers, it is surely a debatable issue. But behind any civil and intelligent discussion about any issue ‘are the facts.’

In this paper I present to you the fact that Centrelink has full lawful right to deny you or anyone a minimal income for two months, and then another two month add infinitum should anyone break a law or rule or dissent. The social ramifications of this are enormous, even lethal. But does anyone care for societies sometimes described as; “one in ten!?” I hope they do. I encourage you not to think that because you believe that harsh Centrelink laws would not be brought to bear upon you, or that it would not happen to you, that you not go on to believe that it is not affecting you. My whole thrust in this paper is that it will, and that it does now affect you.

And so my greatest concern in setting up this part of my site is in elucidating the dynamics that pertain to a ‘dividing society,’ or the basic cultural schisms existing and growing bigger between the rich and the poor, as particularly expressed in how the unemployed are treated.

The poems and skits in my site then are aimed at saying; this is what is happening right now in this institution, - in our society, - do you think this is good?

Please enjoy this part of my web site.

Dominic Gill