Subscribe
Archive for Monday, August 31st, 2009 04:39 pm GMT +10
Work for the Dole
As I was running along the banks of a river a few weeks ago, I came across a patch of cleared land and rows of now-overgrown shrubs. A rusty sign informed me that this regeneration was a part of a ‘Work for the Dole’ initiative. It got me thinking, and I wondered how many people involved in the project actually utilised their shrub-planting skills in subsequent employment? Was the project to provide job-seekers with valuable skills training, or was it to simply get them to work? On 1 July 2009, the previous Federal Government unemployment scheme woke from a coma and re-emerged with a new identity: ‘Job Services Australia’. However, the memory of ‘Work for the Dole’ lingered, its effects modified by an increase in funding for skills and training over recent years and some of the changes introduced by Job Services Australia. Despite these changes, it is fundamentally still the same ineffective scheme as before.
Under the previous scheme for job seekers, people unemployed for a period longer than 6 months were required to participate in work experience activities. The default option for people receiving Newstart, Youth Allowance or Parenting Payment assistance was ‘Work for the Dole’. This involved community-based work in a variety of sectors. It is still a part of the current system, integrated together with other options through Job Services Australia, and it still appears to be the default option for young job seekers, but the focus on it has shifted slightly.
‘Work for the Dole’ is part of a mode of welfare known as ‘workfare’. In ‘workfare’, job seekers must weigh the benefits of being in paid employment against the requirements placed upon them if they are not. These requirements include having to actively search for work and being forced to undertake forms of government-prescribed work, with monetary assistance cut off if participation is not satisfactory.
Underlying ‘workfare’ schemes are economic and social considerations. Not only do ‘workfare’ policies aim at increasing employment, but they are also linked the idea of ‘mutual obligation’: that the unemployed are collectively obliged to ‘give back’ to the community through some form of participation for the assistance they receive. The previous Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs outlined it best when he said, ‘Welfare is a two-way street’.
Workfare sounds like a logical policy, and certain aspects of it such as job search requirements have been successful in leading to employment. However, a strict-workfare government thinking has overemphasised short-term work placements and under-emphasised skills development. ‘Work for the Dole’ provides little work skills, with projects such as regenerating bush sites doing little to assist in obtaining employment. While some placements may be of benefit, like those within fields that jobseekers may desire to go into (such as retail), choice is often restricted to fields that job-seekers may have no interest in pursuing in the future.
In fact, cynics like me tend to think of ‘Work for the Dole’ as something that is aimed at disciplining and regulating the unemployed, as opposed to remedying the real causes of unemployment. While the rationale exists that ‘Work for the Dole’ and other community work requirements push idle jobseekers into paid employment as they will have to work anyway to receive payments, the monetary incentives for staying unemployed are low. ‘Work for the Dole’ is thus not about helping the unemployed, but is instead about appeasing a misconceived notion about them: that they are lazy, devious and must be forced to work. John Howard alluded to this when he said that part of the reason for ‘Work for the Dole’ was to “satisfy general community desire to see the unemployed have the benefits of active work; reduce abuses in the payment of unemployed benefits and encourage the voluntarily unemployed to secure genuine employment”.
Various studies have shown that ‘Work for the Dole’ is highly ineffective in assisting people to find subsequent full-time paid employment. The Federal Government in 2005 released figures showing that three months after completing the program, only roughly one-third of participants move into paid employment, with over half of these people in part-time work. In their report ‘Work for the Dole: Obligation or Opportunity’, Ann and John Nevile make the point that the majority of people who subsequently find work would have done so regardless of their participation in the scheme.
In line with this idea of punishing the unemployed, the name of the scheme itself is linked to the disparaging rhetoric employed in recent years by government to describe unemployment benefits and those receiving them. Giving the scheme a name with negative connotations does not mean that people are deterred from entering into it and subsequently take up employment. It simply means that those who are affected by market forces are and must participate are further demeaned and locked into a ‘dole-bludger’ label, which acts as a further barrier to gaining employment.
It may be that some people find the scheme beneficial in terms of being given general work skills.
However, regardless of any general communication and time-management skills that ‘Work for the Dole’ may provide, it has long been the poster child for curing unemployment, something which it clearly does not do. Given the current specialised skills shortage in Australia, trade-specific skills training should surely be the priority.
Recent increases in skills development and training funding since 2006 have, however, shifted the centrality of ‘Work for the Dole’ as a solution to unemployment. These are positive developments as they actually attempt to solve the major cause of unemployment, which is not the laziness of job seekers but a lack of trade-specific skills. Recently, the Productivity Places Program experienced the effective doubling of placements from 57,000 to 113,000. This does mean that the focus has shifted somewhat from a situation where for many years labour market reform expenditure ran at a rate that was almost half of pre-1996 levels, to one where skills training is promoted. In fact, 45% of places under the Productivity Places Program will be allocated towards those who are currently unemployed.
Similarly, the Job Services Australia scheme brings along several changes that promote training and give job seekers a wider range of options as to their ‘mutual obligation’ requirements. The ability to combine ‘Work for the Dole’ with training opportunities is now present. Job Services Australia also separates job seekers into different streams with different levels of funding depending on their level of need. This offers a more personalised option which has the potential to help job seekers better plan their work and training options.
While these changes mean that the automatic redirection of job seekers into ‘Work for the Dole’ is relaxed and the real causes of unemployment are addressed to a larger extent, a major question looms above all this: Should ‘Work for the Dole’ be removed, along with all the other ‘mutual obligation’ requirements? The answer to this is yes, as while the increases in skills training and the changes with respect to Job Services Australia are commendable, they do not change the flawed nature of ‘Work for the Dole’ and the other similar community work mutual obligation schemes. If the goal of government policy is to help in obtaining employment, then such schemes should be voluntary, as this will allow greater self– autonomy and would remove some of the stigma involved in participation. However, if the goal of mutual obligation requirements is to punish the unemployed, then ‘Work for the Dole’ and its skill– less bush regeneration activities should be kept.
Charlene Gerrard, is a Policy Officer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and non-partisan think tank of young minds.
Out of the Shadows
Once upon a time, amongst the greenery of Redfern Park, an Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, spoke eloquently of the need to strive for success and reconciliation in ‘the test which, so far, we have always failed.’ Today, the fairy tale is over. Representative democracy has proved disastrous for Aboriginal Australia and, two hundred long years after Federation, Indigenous Affairs remains a minefield strewn with the stark remains of grand gestures and the broken remnants of policy debacles. For centuries, Indigenous Australians, denied the power to control their future, have had little say in their own destiny. It is time for Aboriginal Australians to begin again to help determine the direction of this nation. It is time for the annals of our history to be turned to a fresh page. It is time for Indigenous Australians to be given a voice that cannot be ignored; guaranteed representation in the halls of our Parliaments.
It is tragically evident that democracy and the principle of electoral majorities have failed utterly to protect the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of our society.
Statistically, there should be two Indigenous politicians serving in the Senate and four in the House of Representatives. Currently, there are none. A poignant symbol of inclusion and self-determination, reserved seats would provide a presence in the halls of power for a people who, for too long, have been denied legislative influence. In a nation based on the principle of representative government, surely it is vital that the original inhabitants, and most disadvantaged members of our society, are represented. Today, a juvenile with Indigenous heritage is twenty three times more likely to be imprisoned than a non– Indigenous youth and Indigenous life expectancy remains the lowest of any first-world nation. The tragedy of Indigenous Australia will never be resolved by a Parliament devoid of Indigenous representation. Dedicating parliamentary seats to a minority may well seem ‘undemocratic’, but democracy has failed Aboriginal Australia too many times. In the words of Keating, it is time ‘to bring the dispossessed out of the shadows, [and] to recognise that they are part of us.’ The 592,700 Indigenous Australians who reside in Australian territory comprise 2.4% of the Australian population. 90% of those Australians who identify as Indigenous identify as Aboriginal, 6% as Torres Strait Islander and the remaining 4% as an amalgamation of the two former categories. Although New Zealand is home to 526,281 Indigenous citizens, the proportionate figure in terms of population is much greater, at 14.5%. The Aboriginal population of Canada, recorded at 976,305 persons, comprises 3.3% of the total Canadian population while figures show that the Indigenous community within the United States of America, although representing less than 1.5% of the total population, is approximately 3,000,000 persons.
Although a relatively small proportion of the Australian population, the Indigenous peoples of this nation have long registered socio-economic data more typical of third-world nations than a modern and prosperous democracy. Indeed, although it is well known that Indigenous life expectancy remains seventeen years below the national average, key indicators such as literacy rates, educational attendance, employment and health figures also reveal a significant discrepancy between Indigenous society and mainstream Australia.
Despite increased governmental and popular awareness, many of the issues confronting Indigenous Australia remain unsolved and, in some cases, the situation is deteriorating. Indeed, a policy analysis produced by Onemda VicHealth Koori Health Unit argued, in 2005, that ‘there has been little or no progress in Indigenous health over the past decade or more.‘2 Such claims are reinforced by a tragic litany of statistical evidence. In the period between 2002 and 2006, the imprisonment rate for Indigenous women increased by 34% and the detention rate for Indigenous men rose by 20%. The incidence of kidney disease, within the Indigenous population, doubled between 2001 and 2005, reaching a figure ten times higher than the non-Indigenous rate. Furthermore, there has been no change in the prevalence of hearing disorders amongst Indigenous children. Over the ten years between 1995 and 2005, there was almost no change in the rate of high risk alcohol consumption amongst Indigenous men and the reported rate increased for Indigenous women. The proportion of Indigenous Australians engaging in moderate to high levels of exercise decreased over the same time period and the reported level of smoking remained constant. Similarly, there has been no significant change recorded in the rate of housing overcrowding and a substantial increase in the reported number of long-term health problems has been recorded.
It is evident that our parliamentary system has failed the very people most in need of protection. Indeed, testifying to a Parliamentary Inquiry in 1998, the then Director General of the NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs noted that ‘existing politicians do not or cannot…adequately’ represent Aboriginal people.3 The ineffectiveness of Federal Parliament is evidenced by the failure of the ten year formal reconciliation process, implemented by the Hawke government in 1991, and the tragic inability of successive governments to effect significant improvements in the area of indigenous health. Whilst many first-world nations have recognised Indigenous peoples within various legislative frameworks, and experienced corresponding increases in Indigenous welfare, the Australian Parliamentary system has effectively precluded any form of Indigenous representation. As a consequence, Parliament must confront perhaps the greatest injustice of our generation without a single Indigenous representative. Albert Camus famously noted that ‘democracy is not the law of the majority, but the protection of the minority.’ How can we expect to protect the most vulnerable when we refuse to allow them a legislative voice? This is not to detract from the improvements that have been made and the painstaking progress that has, little by little, begun to close the gap between Indigenous Australians and mainstream Australian society. However, it would be misleading to characterise the disparity between Aboriginal and ‘white’ Australia as anything other than a chasm of immense proportions. Indeed, the most telling evidence of such a divide is the harsh reality that, despite decades of legislative effort, an Indigenous Australian will still die seventeen years earlier than the national average. In contrast New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America have dramatically reduced the Indigenous life expectancy gap to within three to seven years. The great difference between Australia and the remainder of the Western world is that other modern democracies with significant Indigenous populations have found a way to bridge the socio-economic chasm that divides such societies. The bridge is as simple as it is effective: Indigenous representation within the legislative system.
Policy Recommendations
After consideration of the issue, Left Right Think-Tank advocates the implementation of the following options; * A wide and pervasive public debate about Indigenous welfare is needed. The onus is on both voluntary Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) and civil society to make the status of Indigenous Australians an issue of public policy.
- Ignorance of the true state of Indigenous Affairs, especially among young people, is a problem that needs to be addressed. The promotion and teaching of Indigenous culture and history must urgently be removed from the context of the ‘history wars’ and examined in an unbiased manner by all parties.
- Given the disbandment of ATSIC, Indigenous Australians are without any representative body at a Federal level. It is in the interests of the Federal Government to act decisively to ensure an alternative body, whether associated with Indigenous political participation or not, is established.
- Although some research into reserved seats has been carried out at state level, there is an urgent need for such studies at a Federal level. This paper recommends the establishment of a Royal Commission to explore the feasibility of dedicated seats and, also, to consider other means of involving Indigenous Australians within the Federal parliamentary process.
- The major parties should make immediate efforts to preselect Indigenous candidates for winnable seats, in order to facilitate Indigenous representation.
Lowering the Voting Age
A smart move for Labor, a real opportunity for the Liberals, and good public policy — can this really be?
When it comes to voting, some Australians may see it as nothing more than a hassle, one more onerous incursion on their time by the Government. Of course, many see it quite differently. It might come as a surprise, but sentiment today suggests a significant number of young Australians under the age of 18 view the right to vote as something of incredible value. Later this year, the Rudd Government intends to raise the issue in its second green paper on electoral reform. However, the debate at least is not a new one. In 2004, the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) produced a research paper entitled “Lowering the Voting Age: A Discussion of the Issues from the Victorian Electoral Commission’s Perspective.” This detailed most of the popular arguments against lowering the voting age and provided convincing responses. The VEC it seems is clearly in favour of lowering the voting age. The report can be used equally to analyse Federal electoral rules.
To understand the issue more fully though, the political effects must also be considered.
The VEC paper states, broadly, that people are eligible to vote in Victoria if they answer two questions, the first in the positive and the second in the negative: do they have a substantial stake in the Governance of Victoria? (in the positive) And, are they excluded from voting? (in the negative). The author makes the claim that, “It is hard to think of an argument that would show that 16 and 17 year olds do not have a substantial stake in government decisions.” The exclusion of young people from voting tends to stem from one of the exclusion criteria, namely that they, “Are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting”. Assuming a very liberal interpretation of these words, the excuse for many years has been that young people just don’t understand the importance of voting, and if they did, they wouldn’t vote properly. The paper goes on to highlight the arguments that are used to further that claim, and systematically provide evidence to the contrary. I strongly urge anybody interested in this issue to read the VEC research paper, a link to which is provided at the end of this piece.
With an appreciation of the basic debate, an awareness of the political motivation is illuminating. It is well accepted that young people, Australians included, tend to be politically left leaning. The virtues and ideals of the left are indeed admirable. The Labor party, thanks in part to Kevin07’s presidential-like campaign for the Prime Ministership, has managed to recruit vast numbers of young people to their ranks, whether officially or not. This has been seen in other countries too, with the most recent perhaps being the election of Barack Obama in the United States. It is clear that the inspiration and mobilisation of the younger demographic paid enormous dividends to the Democratic party’s push. Does it seem that far-fetched to suggest that a decrease in the voting age would produce even more young votes for the left? I think not. The Liberal party continually struggle to engage Australia’s young people relative to Labor, even if it is through no fault of their own. With a commanding presence in youth circles, the time is right for the Labor party to be pushing for a lower voting age, it makes perfect political sense.
The case for non-compulsory voting for young people was also discussed in the VEC report. In order to minimise the disadvantages of lowering the voting age, the VEC support a lowering of the voting age to 17 with non compulsory voting for those young people only. Voting would then become compulsory at the age of 18, as is the law currently. In many ways, this is a very attractive proposition. It should be implemented. So, we arrive at a rather disturbing dilemma. The proposal is good public policy. It will lead to an increase in Democratic rights without the common disadvantages of health, economic or environmental concerns. It is founded on rational thought and clear reasoning, without spin or obfuscation. However, its political ramifications are immense and demand careful consideration. Giving a political party easy votes isn’t the most effective way to preserve our Democratic system and representative Parliament. That’s the Liberal party line.
Seen in a different light though, the change may just inspire the Liberal party to make a concerted effort to try and connect with young people in a meaningful way.
This proposal will lead to a beneficial form of competition, and it might just shake up our political process enough to make young people a key interest group, not just symbolic showpieces for Governments and large corporations. The claim by Government and corporate Australia that they ‘consult’ young people needs to be replaced with “Young people have a key stake in our continual operation; the time to treat them seriously has come.” This thought transformation is integral to the future of good governance in Australia.
Tim Udorovic, 20, is a Policy Officer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and nonpartisan think-tank of young minds.
Changes to Youth Allowance
In its most recent Budget, the Rudd Government has decided to make finding the money to attend University even harder for young Australians.
The media has been ablaze since the release of the May Budget with criticism of the Government’s changes to the Youth Allowance. Briefly, to qualify for the higher ‘independent’ Youth Allowance rate, a young person originally had to work at least 15 hours per week for 12 months or earn over $19,500 in that time. Under the new system, the 15 hours per week becomes 30, and the 12 months becomes 18. Simply put, this means that prospective students undertaking a ‘gap year’ in order to work (and hopefully qualify for the Youth Allowance when they begin their study) will no longer be eligible to receive the payments. This has rightly triggered an uproar from parents, prospective students and rural communities. From January 1 2010, a student completing Year 12 in a rural area will no longer be able to take a gap year, work, and then commence University studies in the city with the financial security of the Youth Allowance. It is an indefensible policy to try to save money by penalising those who most need it. All this from a Government that purportedly wants to increase University attendance — it is astonishing to say the least.
The Budget papers say that, “The measure will provide savings of $1,819.9 million over four years, which will be redirected to help fund other improvements to student income support.” The ‘other improvements’ talked about here include steps to relax the parental income test, progressively reduce the Youth Allowance age of independence for students from 25 years to 22 years, and increase the level of personal income at which Youth Allowance begins to be reduced from $236 to $400 per fortnight. There will also be an extension of the relocation scholarship for rural students moving to the city to study of about $4,000 in the first year. Added to this will be a $2,254 start-up scholarship for all students on Youth Allowance. These measures are very welcome, and the Government should be applauded for recognising at least some of the shortfalls that have existed for some time now. However, a serious issue arises when the source of funding for these improvements is considered. Punishing students who rely on the Youth Allowance for their everyday expenses whilst studying at University for the benefit of other students who may not be so desperate is simply not good policy.
The cost-cutting measures herein may be seen by some as another element of the Rudd Government’s war on middle-class welfare, but these measures don’t help. Indeed it is widely accepted that the parents of many rural young people are income poor, yet asset rich. Christopher Pyne, the Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training has said that, “Their parents are above the threshold for income support, but are nowhere near wealthy enough to be able to pay for their children’s rent, food and educational expenses.” The improvements in the Youth Allowance as outlined earlier will admittedly help ease the pressure on rural young people who still benefit from it, but ironically, those same changes may mean that some become completely ineligible in the first place. He also says that, “This Government talks big about increasing University attendance, but has disenfranchised more than thirty thousand students — particularly from rural and regional areas — from having the financial means to do so.” The media in general certainly seem to agree with Pyne’s view.
The way they stand, these changes seem untenable. There are strong arguments supporting a complete reversal of the reforms, many of them centering on rural-living prospective students and those taking a gap year. In terms of a practical and workable alternative, the Government should separate the criteria for those prospective students taking a gap year, and currently enrolled students. In terms of gap year students, working for at least 30 hours per week seems reasonable, but the words “in at least an 18 month period,” should be amended to “in at least a 12 month period. “This will allow gap year students to qualify for Youth Allowance having completed their single gap year of work. Concerning currently enrolled students, requiring 30 hours of work per week on top of a full-time study régime is wholly unfair and impractical. The Government should review its decision to “remove the criterion that the recipient earned, in an 18-month period since leaving school, an amount equivalent to 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under Wage Level A of the Australian Pay and Classification Scale generally applicable to trainees (in 2009 this requires earnings of $19,532).” A total dollar amount of income earned over some period of time (probably up to 18 months) in order to qualify for Youth Allowance should only be an option for students currently enrolled in full-time study at the time of the application. This would then mean that prospective students would be able to work full time for 30 hours per week in a gap year prior to study whilst simultaneously allowing current students to take on more flexible work hours (not necessarily 30 hours per week) whilst studying in order to earn the required amount of income to qualify for Youth Allowance.
The Government is not simply profiteering off the more stringent criteria though. Quite the contrary — it has addressed many critical problems. The only issue now standing in the way of real progress with the Youth Allowance and youth income support, as it stands, is the evident disincentive to go and study at University. The proposed changes outlined here would go a long way to relieving this major problem.
Tim Udorovic, 20, is a Policy Officer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and nonpartisan think-tank of young minds.