InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Your views: on a Foley outburst, university finances, disability rights and Centrelink

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on an exchange over police violence, a black hole in uni accounts, giving disabled people a voice, and mutual obligation.

Print article

Story Timeline

Commenting on the story: :”Seriously you are a dickhead”: Former Treasurer’s rant on police critique

If one can only express a counter opinion by using personal and offensive language, then perhaps the person in question needs help. John Pilla

I was shocked when I saw the image of a fully grown man, and a police officer, kicking the young boy’s feet out from underneath him.

The obviously violent act towards the boy caused him to fall flat on his face causing injury. I understand he was taken to the hospital for treatment by the police.

A civilised society should never treat children in this way regardless of what may have been said by the boy. He is a child. No one was in danger.

I understand this 16 year old boy was released without charge.

I am wondering now how the police officer’s assault of a child has impacted the boy?  

Yes, I agree the police officer’s action is totally unacceptable, if not criminal, and no one should defend this behaviour. – Kenise Neill

Commenting on the story: Pandemic could cost Australian universities $16 billion

Give me a break.

Vice chancellors on salaries over $1m and platoons of executive staff earning more than $300,000.

Their annual reports tell it all. Super payments are over 17% while rest of us need to settle on 9%. Most academic staff only work 9 months on top of this.

Maybe time for gravy to dry up. – Peter Davey

Commenting on the story: Disability taskforce chair hits out as Labor blasts “disarray”

Until such inquiries address a basic issue which is almost totally ignored by service providers and advocates we will not make progress.

Ann-Marie’s biggest problem was that she did not have a means by which she could independently communicate in order to lay a complaint.

It is time people with disabilities who are able (and most are) were allowed and encouraged to speak for themselves, rather than have others do it for them. – KM Gunn

Commenting on the story: Centrelink “mutual obligations” to resume for unemployed – but questions remain

What a farce Centrelink’s Jobseeker and Jobactive programmes are!

Even before COVID-19 hit there were, nor had there been, almost any jobs available. The absurdity of having an unemployed person turn up for an interview with an alleged “Job Provider” was/is the biggest farce of all.

People obediently turn up only to be told: “There are no suitable jobs available, but I will enrol you in a course”. Dutifully the job seeker attends and successfully completes the course. Then it is back to Centrelink’s “Job Provider” and the entire charade starts all over again and ends in yet another pointless course.

The jobs simply are not out there and with an estimated 600,000 – it’s probably more like 1,000,000 – added to the unemployment  list the chances of getting a job – particularly for anyone who has been out of work for a length of time – are even worse.

Many years ago, when I was between jobs, I went to Centrelink to try to get one. I had an interview with a Centrelink staff member.

She referred me to a group meeting, about 15 of us, with one of these job providers. We filled out forms, the process was explained and then we were told that we would be required to attend a one-on-one meeting “At a time and date of which we will advise you”.

That meeting came around, it lasted for about 4 minutes – long enough for the job provider” to tell me that “Due to your age (I was in my early 60s) the prospect of you ever getting a job again is nil. Thank you for attending, I will recommend that you be excused from seeking work and you will receive un employment benefits until you turn 65 when you will be eligible for the Age Pension.” End of Meeting.

Actually I found a job for myself a week later.

At the time it was openly admitted that these Job providers were paid an initial $200 for each client they saw at the group meeting and a further $400 for each client they saw at second meetings.

Do the sums. 15×200 ($3000) + 15x$400 ($6000). Total $9000 for a week’s so-called “work”! Without doubt the same process is in place today only the payments will by now have probably doubled.

Scrap those pointless Job Provider positions and raise JobSeeker payment. Robert McCormick

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

Help our journalists uncover the facts

In times like these InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to donate to InDaily.

Donate here
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article