Poverty Is A Political Choice

21/07/2026

A "report" points out what is already known about Australia's failed job seeker scam.

Side note: some of these companies keep closing branches. It forces people to completely waste their time driving across town, or catching a bus, just to have their time completely wasted further by these taxpayer-funded nuisances - just because the government wants that. People can request a phone appointment but they are not always approved. A complaint to the department sometimes solves that. Remember that these companies are still breaking some state and federal laws because social security laws allows it. There's no consistency!

ABC Business, via MSN, 'Australia's jobseeker system fails workers and enriches millionaires, report says', by Gareth Hutchens, 21/7/26

"Australia's system of privatised employment services is structurally broken and its prized federal contracts are being used to enrich millionaires and private equity firms, a new report argues.

An investigation by the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR) has found an "alarming lack of transparency" from major government contractors operating inside the privatised employment services system.

It has also raised concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest arising from for-profit companies in the system making large donations to Australia's major political parties.

The employment services industry is supposed to help unemployed Australians find work by providing them with tailored job search support.

Employment services are the federal government's single largest procurement outside Defence, with contracts worth $5.5 billion underpinning the system's for-profit and not-for-profit contractors, provided under the banner of Workforce Australia Services.

Participation in Workforce Australia Services is compulsory for many people who receive Centrelink's JobSeeker payments.

But the CICTAR report argues that the system has become a lucrative vehicle for private equity-controlled multinationals and wealthy executives to extract massive profits from taxpayer funds, with some providers developing a near-total dependence on lucrative government contracts.

It shows how for-profit "employment services providers" can use aggressive tax minimisation, large dividend payouts, offshore-related party payments, tax havens, and opaque financial reporting to extract profits from the system, without breaking any laws.

And it questions if the system is meeting the public's expectations.

"It's no secret that Australia's system of privatised employment services has failed," the report argues.

"The Howard-era system fills the pockets of private equity and millionaires, while leaving jobseekers without work."

The CICTAR report

The report, 'Who's rorting who? The failure of outsourced job services', was released today.

It says AusTender data shows employment services contracts currently total $5.5 billion, shared between 45 providers.

The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) grants the licences to deliver generalist or specialist employment services (such as to Indigenous Australians, refugees, and ex-offenders). Each licence is designated for a geographic region in Australia.

Just nine for-profit providers — APM, atWork Australia, MAX, Asuria, Teldraw, Sureway, Sarina Russo, RNTT and Jobfind Centres — hold more than a third of the total employment services contract value, at $2.1 billion. A single provider, APM, holds 23 licences and a contract worth $590.7 million.

Many of those providers are recipients of government contracts in other areas, such as aged and disability care.

As the report shows, private-equity-controlled for-profit companies play a significant role in Australia's system (the two largest for-profit providers, APM and atWork, are both controlled by private equity). Top employment services providers have become notable as sources of wealth for high-profile Australians.

The report looks in greater detail at four of Australia's for-profit employment services providers — APM, atWork, Sarina Russo Job Access and Jobs Statewide — which hold contracts worth a collective total of $1.24 billion.

It uses those four case studies to show how difficult it is to analyse the complicated corporate ownership structure of private-equity-controlled multinationals and for-profit businesses to find out what types of tax arrangements they are using and how much tax they are paying, to see if Australians are getting value for money.

"All four corporations are heavily dependent on government contracts," the report notes.

"When individual or corporate empires are built on the back of government funding to support the unemployed, it is appropriate to ask: is this an efficient and effective use of government resources?"

In response to questions from CICTAR, both APM and the operator of Jobs Statewide said their programs were long-standing and successful in helping people into work.

The 'biggest shake-up in 30 years'?

In 2023, a Labor-dominated parliamentary committee reviewed Australia's multi-decade experiment with privatisation and an outsourced quasi-market system for employment services, and it called for the system to be completely rebuilt.

It found that after decades of outsourcing, the Australian public service now had little corporate memory or experience of the complexities of employment service delivery, so it could not even judge if the billion-dollar contracts it was awarding to private sector job agencies were buying value for money.

"We have an inefficient, outsourced, fragmented social security compliance management system that sometimes gets someone a job against all odds," it said.

"Every country that has experimented with extensive outsourcing has eventually realised that it does not work without a public sector core, as some companies will profiteer."

In May this year, the Albanese government announced the biggest shake-up to Australia's employment services system in 30 years.

At the time, Amanda Rishworth, the federal employment minister, said she wanted to build a "new employment service" to fix the problems that had plagued the industry for decades.

However, she said contracted for-profit service providers would still play a major role in her new system.

The CICTAR report challenges the idea that for-profit service providers should be part of the new system.

CICTAR is funded by grants from trusts and foundations, and by trade unions from overseas and in Australia, including the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) and the New South Wales Nurses and Midwifery Association (NSWNMF).

Recommendations for a new public model

The CICTAR report makes four recommendations.

First, it says employment services should be entirely returned to public sector delivery for both online and in-person services because the privatised model has failed in Australia.

It argues that the public sector would lower costs by removing the profit motive from employment service delivery, eliminate offshore profit-shifting and dividend payouts to shareholders, and provide higher-quality and more accountable services for jobseekers and employers.

It says non-profit organisations could still deliver specialist services in the new system.

Second, it says the procurement of services must be strengthened in the meantime. It says the government must enforce stricter transparency standards for contractors in the current system.

It says that should include publishing the full text of all service delivery contracts, banning entities that use aggressive tax minimisation or fail to file timely financial statements, requiring full Tier 1 financial disclosures for any entity receiving over $10 million in funding, and subjecting private equity acquisitions of government-funded firms to intense scrutiny regarding their corporate structures and ultimate owners.

Third, it says providers need to be properly scrutinised across all funding streams.

It says since many employment services providers operate across multiple government sectors — such as aged care, disability, and childcare — Australia's procurement rules must be unified so that if a provider is screened out or disqualified from one government service area then it should be automatically barred from receiving contracts in other areas.

Fourth, it says political donations by government contractors are a risk to the integrity, or perceived integrity, of Australia's political system and the practice should be prohibited.

"Entities that hold government contracts above a certain threshold, together with their shareholders and key management personnel, should be prohibited from making political donations," it says.

"This would be most appropriately achieved by reforming the Commonwealth Electoral Act.""

14/07/2026

23/06/2026

The Point, 'What are Australia's jobs programs really for? The answer may be that employment was never the point.' Maiy Azize, 22 Jun 2026

"This month it was Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth announcing changes to the compulsory activities people on JobSeeker can be forced to undertake. The debate always focuses on the details. Which activities should people be required to do? How many appointments should they attend? What new obligations should be added or removed? But after thirty years of evidence, we should be asking a more fundamental question. What if helping people find work is not actually what this system is designed to do?"

This month it was Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth announcing changes to the compulsory activities people on JobSeeker can be forced to undertake. The debate always focuses on the details. Which activities should people be required to do? How many appointments should they attend? What new obliga...

23/06/2026

Working at the CES back in the day.

There's plenty that could be said about the childish and vile experience that victims of the privatisation have had to endure since the CES was closed.

Guardian, 'A job that changed me: At the dole office, I met very few ‘bludgers’. Most people desperately wanted work', Jay Martin, 23 Jun 2026

Graduating into a recession, my role at Australia’s government employment agency was sobering. I felt how easily my place could have been reversed

17/06/2026

💬 "Have you tried applying online?"

For many unemployed and underemployed Australians, that simple question has become a symbol of a much bigger problem.

Taxpayers waste billions funding privatised employment services every year that enrich a small number of people and organisations.

Yet countless job seekers say they are doing most of the work themselves:

✔ Searching online job boards

✔ Writing resumes and cover letters

✔ Contacting employers directly

✔ Following up applications

✔ Networking through friends and family

Meanwhile, they are often required to attend time-wasting, nuisance appointments to discuss jobs they've already applied for themselves.

The uncomfortable question is this:

If a "job provider" doesn't actually provide jobs, what exactly are taxpayers paying for?

Nobody expects employment services to magically create jobs out of thin air.

But many Australians believe the system should be measured by real outcomes, not paperwork, compliance activities, appointment attendance, and endless administration.

At a time when housing costs, grocery prices, electricity bills and petrol costs continue to rise, every taxpayer dollar matters.

Should more funding go directly into training, wage subsidies, apprenticeships and job creation?

Or is the current system delivering value for money?

What has your experience been with employment service providers?

👇 Tell us in the comments.

13/06/2026

🚨 Why Does Australia Treat Unemployment Like a Moral Failure?

There is something fundamentally wrong with the way Australia treats people who lose their jobs. A lot of it is ignorance based on myths.

A person can work for 10, 20, or even 30 years.

They can pay income tax.
Pay GST.
Pay council rates.
Contribute to Medicare.
Support local businesses.
Help fund the very welfare system they may one day need.

But the moment they find themselves unemployed or underemployed, they often discover that the system views them differently.

Suddenly they're required to completely waste their time for nothing by attending appointments, complete other childish "compliance" activities, report every dollar earned, and constantly prove they deserve assistance. It's so childish!

Many describe feeling less like citizens who have fallen on hard times and more like suspects under investigation.

Meanwhile, other payments within the welfare system often come with fewer participation requirements, less scrutiny, and more flexibility. The public's attitude is completely different and hypocritical.

This raises an uncomfortable question:

Why is unemployment treated as a character flaw?

Most people on JobSeeker are not unemployed because they want to be.

Businesses close.
Companies downsize.
Industries change.
Technology replaces jobs.
Health issues arise.
Family circumstances shift.

Sometimes people can only find a few hours of casual work each week when they desperately want full-time employment.

Yet public debate often portrays JobSeeker recipients as though they are avoiding work rather than searching for it.

The irony is that many JobSeeker recipients have already contributed more tax to the system than they will ever receive back from it. It's the same with pensioners too. The only "mutual obligation" is on the government in reality, not the job seeker.

Imagine paying insurance premiums for decades and then being treated with suspicion the first time you make a claim.

That's how many unemployed Australians feel.

The system should recognise the difference between long-term dependence and temporary hardship.

Someone who loses their job after years of employment should not immediately be thrown into a maze of bureaucracy that consumes time, money and energy that could be spent actually finding work.

At a time when housing costs are soaring, groceries are becoming more expensive, electricity bills keep climbing and petrol prices remain unpredictable, forcing people to jump through endless administrative hoops seems increasingly disconnected from reality.

Australia needs to have a serious conversation about dignity.

A strong social safety net should not exist only for those who never worked.

It should also be there for those who did everything society asked of them, paid their taxes, followed the rules and then found themselves facing circumstances beyond their control.

Losing your job should not mean losing your dignity.

And needing temporary support should not come with the assumption that you've somehow failed as a person.

Imagine society's attitude adjustment if a small percentage of each worker's taxes were invested in an unemployment fund? It's their money just the same.

What do you think? Does Australia treat unemployed and underemployed workers fairly?

11/06/2026

Where transport costs are concerned in the image, remember that not all people on Jobseeker are unemployed. Some are underemployed. The report mentions that. There's also a measly $150 a fortnight income free area before the Jobseeker allowance is cut and this is in a fuel and cost of living crunch. Imagine how much transport costs will be when the fuel excise cut ends? Add car maintenance, rego and insurance to the transport figure and it's easy to see where it comes from when the totals are divided by 26 fortnights. Then there's the cost to get to a fake job agency monthly to have your time completely wasted for nothing by those taxpayer-funded nuisances. Some refuse phone appointments, regardless of the right to request them under current flexible servicing arrangements.

The 2026 Cost of Living Index found that after paying for just rent, food and transport:

-A single person on JobSeeker falls $251 behind every week.
-A single parent on Parenting Payment falls $174 behind every week.
-A couple with two children on JobSeeker falls $428 behind every week.

And that's before paying for electricity, internet, insurance, medications, school costs or any unexpected expenses.

For years, politicians and commentators have told people on social security to "budget better". This report confirms what people experiencing poverty have been saying all along: you cannot budget your way out of an income that is simply too low to cover the basics.

People survive by skipping meals, delaying medical care, going without heating and cooling, living in overcrowded housing, falling into debt, and relying on emergency relief. That isn't a personal failure. It's a policy failure.

The report also highlights a truth that is rarely discussed: not everyone receiving JobSeeker is unemployed. Many recipients are people with disabilities, chronic illness, caring responsibilities, older workers facing discrimination, or people piecing together insecure and part-time work.

Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Nobody should be forced to live in poverty because they lost a job, got sick, became disabled, left a violent relationship, or are raising children alone.

It's time to raise income support payments to a liveable level and ensure everyone can afford the essentials of life: a safe home, healthy food, transport and dignity.

Poverty is a political choice. It doesn't have to be this way.

11/06/2026

Today we are launching our Raise the Rate Survey 2026. Living in one of the wealthiest countries in the world should mean you’re doing more than just surviving. But too many people receiving income support, are forced to go without basic goods and services because their budgets simply cannot stretch to meet the minimum costs of everyday life.

People on payments like JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Parenting Payment, Austudy, Abstudy and similar, are being left behind on the lowest incomes in the country. With unemployment rising across Australia - this issue is starting to hit home for more and more people.

Last time we ran this survey, our community told us about the constant stress and fear of trying to make ends meet. Anecdotally, we are hearing even more concerning stories as costs continue to increase. We need to paint a full picture of what it is really like trying to survive on these payments in 2026.

The evidence is clear, but together we need to push the government to act. If you receive any of these working-age payments, we want to hear from you, no matter where you live in Australia.

We are asking you for two things:

1️⃣ Take the survey to share your real-life experience.

2️⃣ Spread the word by sharing this post with friends, family, and your community.

Every single voice makes our case stronger. Head to the link to get started.

Take the Survey HERE: https://efcee0ql45h.typeform.com/to/BCIQIUZh

04/06/2026

🚨 Why Are We Making It Harder for People on JobSeeker During a Cost of Living Crisis?

The cost of living crisis is hitting Australians from every angle, yet some of the rules surrounding JobSeeker seem stuck in a different era. It seems that the government is out of touch with reality and is deliberately holding some people back and leaving them behind so that they cannot participate in the economy.

The recent Clayton's "reform" announcement, about , has been widely criticised. It ignores other factors that need to change too. If the government is serious about helping people find work while keeping them financially afloat, there are several real reforms that should be on the table:

✅ Double the income-free area from $150 per fortnight to at least $300 (preferably more). People should be encouraged to take on casual and part-time work without immediately losing a large portion of their payment.

✅ Suspend mandatory face-to-face appointments for at least six months during the ongoing fuel and cost of living crisis. For many job seekers, travelling to appointments can mean choosing between petrol and groceries. Phone and online appointments should remain available.

✅ Allow JobSeeker recipients to apply for an advance payment at least twice per year. Unexpected expenses don't conveniently happen once every twelve months. Car repairs, medical bills and household emergencies can strike at any time.

✅ End the partner income test. Adults should be assessed as individuals. Too many people are left financially dependent on their partner because their own support payment is reduced or removed based on someone else's income.

✅ Increase the base rate of JobSeeker and rent assistance to a level that reflects the real cost of housing, food, utilities and transport.

✅ Raise the assets and savings thresholds so people aren't effectively punished for having a modest financial buffer.

✅ Make sole traders on Jobseeker eligible for the wage subsidy and double it. That way they can concentrate on building up more work without the government's childish, nuisance games.

✅ Job seekers over 50 should be in digital employment services for as long as they need and not the childish nuisance provider network. They should be able to apply online for funding for work clothes or some basic tools or equipment or other items for work.

✅ Improve access to training, education and skill development programs that help people move into secure employment rather than simply meeting compliance requirements.

✅ Reduce unnecessary red tape and reporting requirements that consume time and resources without improving employment outcomes.

Most Australians understand that people receiving JobSeeker are not looking for luxury. They're looking for a fair chance to pay their bills, keep a roof over their heads and find meaningful work. They worked previously and paid taxes. That's their money!

A modern social security system should support people into employment, not deliberately make life harder while they're trying to get there.

What reforms would you like to see made to JobSeeker?

03/06/2026

The American Middle Class Trap: Why Your Purchasing Power Was Written Off. 🇺🇸📉

Next time you’re told that inflation, stagnant wages, and crumbling roads are just the natural price of a changing global economy, look at the architectural blueprint of American wealth. The divide isn’t an accident. It’s an executive decision.

Imagine a high-contrast split-screen. On one side, the gleaming, hyper-illuminated glass towers of Wall Street and Silicon Valley - spaces where capital doesn't just flow, it cascades. On the other side, the weathered, rusting infrastructure of the American heartland, where public transit, roads, and community centers are left to decay in the shadows.

This isn't just a gap in income. It is The Middle Class Trap in physical form.

For decades, the rules of the American economy have been quietly rewired to prioritize asset velocity over actual labor. We are living in a system engineered to deliver two entirely different realities:

The Asset Runway: While the stock market and tech valuations break records, capital gains continue to be taxed at a fraction of the rate applied to a frontline worker's grueling shift. The system ensures that existing wealth compounds exponentially in the light.

The Throttled Heartland: Meanwhile, your Purchasing Power is systematically compressed. As the cost of non-discretionary overheads - like healthcare, education, and housing - skyrockets, the domestic infrastructure that supports ordinary families is left to rot.

When a system is designed to ensure that asset inflation outpaces baseline wages, a locked-out layout becomes a mathematical certainty. The wealth stays on the top floors because the legislative framework was deliberately written to bypass the ground level.

Poverty and middle-class stagnation aren't natural economic events. They are policy choices made in comfortable rooms, far away from the streets running out of power.

It's time to stop treating structural neglect like an unavoidable tragedy. It’s time to unbox the rules of the game and demand a rewrite.

Look at the infrastructure in your own town compared to the soaring corporate profits on the news. Does it feel like a market fluctuation, or a deliberate design choice? Let’s unbox it in the comments. 👇