Echo Issue Outline: copyright Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
Should those on unemployment benefits have to keep a `dole diary'?
On July 14, 1996, the federal Government announced its intention to require those on unemployment benefits to keep a detailed diary outlining their attempts to find employment.
The unemployed will be required to approach up to eight employers per fortnight. The diary entries will be checked against employers' records.
Those who do not keep the diaries will be penalised and those who make fraudulent entries will have their unemployment benefits stopped.
The move has meet with opposition from civil liberties groups and others.
Background
Currently those receiving unemployment benefits are required to provide details of at least two attempts to find work in the previous fortnight when submitting their fortnightly application for benefits.
There is also currently provision for employers and others to notify the Department of Social Security if they believe fraudulent welfare claims are being made.
In the first 11 months of the last financial year 100,000 people had their unemployment benefits reduced or cancelled, but, only 2000 were convicted of fraud.
Some 1.4 million Australians receive unemployment benefits each year.
Under the new scheme applicants for unemployment benefits will have to submit their diaries outlining their job-seeking efforts every three months.
Those receiving unemployment benefits will also have to apply for up to eight jobs each fortnight, instead of only two and record in a diary the names and details of employers contacted.
Social security officers will determine the number of approaches, between two and eight, the person will have to make each fortnight.
This will depend on the person's skills, where they live and the labour market in that area. For instance, a person trying to find work in a small country town, with high unemployment, will not have to try for as many jobs as someone from a Melbourne suburb where there are more jobs available.
When the diaries are submitted every three months, the Department of Social will then randomly check the entries with employers. The current fortnightly reviews will also continue.
Employers will not be required to sign the diaries, but they will have to keep records of unsuccessful job applicants in case they are contacted to verify the jobseekers' claims.
Jobseekers found to have provided false information will lose their benefits. Those who fail to fill in the diary or hand it in on time will also be penalised. They will be taken off unemployment benefits for two weeks as a result of their first breach and an extra two weeks for every subsequent breach.
From July 29, those who apply for the Newstart, Job Search or Youth Training allowances will have to record in the diary the names, addresses and contact details of the businesses they approach for jobs.
Also to be included as part of the government's scheme to scrutinise those on unemployment benefits more closely will be a `dob in a dole bludger' hotline. Information can be passed on in this way anonymously.
Arguments in favour of those on unemployment benefits having to keep a dole diary?
The primary argument offered in favour of the new diary scheme for those on unemployment benefits is said to be that it will enable the Department of Social Security to more readily identify those who are claiming benefits without seriously seeking work.
There appear to be two reasons for the government wishing to detect those who are not making sustained efforts to find employment.
The first reason offered appears to be one of equity or justice. According to this line of argument, it is not appropriate that the Government, and ultimately the taxpayer, should pay to support those who are not genuinely attempting to find work.
Senator Newman, the Minister for Social Security, has stated, `[Taxpayers are] sick and tired of paying for people who are being sponsored by them for doing nothing ... I think Australians are tired of being taken for mugs by some people.'
Behind claims of this sort is the belief that unemployment benefits are not an automatic entitlement for anyone who is out of work. They are said to exist to provide support to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own and who are making rigorous efforts to get back into the work place.
Therefore, those who are not making large efforts to find employment, should, it is argued, cease to be able to draw unemployment benefits.
Anecdotal evidence has been offered of people gaining and remaining on unemployment benefits by presenting fraudulent claims to have made two attempts to seek work per fortnight.
Age columnist, Padraic McGuinness, has summed up this position in the following manner, `... to pretend that there is not a substantial proportion of dole recipients who are making a deliberate choice of lifestyle that involves avoiding the inconvenience of regular work, early rising and fulfilment of duties that interfere with watching television and other recreations, is unrealistic.'
The second major reason offered for wanting to remove from unemployment benefits those who are not making efforts to find work is that this will save the government large amounts of money.
Don Larkin, the deputy chief executive officer of the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has stated, `A recent survey of Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry members identified the imbalance in Australia's balance of payments as the nation's most enduring and significant economic problem.
`The most effective way to address this is to reduce the government's deficit, and this can most effectively be done by reducing social security spending - in particular tightening eligibility criteria and cracking down on fraudulent claims. Maintenance of a dole diary, and a `dob in a bludger' program will help in this objective. It will save the government money and improve the nation's financial position, and mean a better and fairer deal for those genuinely needing help.'
Senator Newman has estimated that the diary will save $25 million a year as part of a package of government measures which she estimates will save $100 million a year.
Finally it has been argued that the scheme is not an attempt to penalise the genuinely unemployed. Its supporters have presented it as an attempt to help the genuinely unemployed. They have offered as evidence of this the fact that the diary includes hints for finding a job.
Arguments against those on unemployment benefits having to keep a dole diary?
There are two major arguments offered in opposition to the introduction of a `dole diary'. Firstly, it is claimed that such a scheme would be an unfair imposition on the unemployed. Secondly, it is claimed that such a scheme would be ineffective, expensive and cumbersome to implement.
The first claim, that the scheme is unfair, is primarily based on the assertion that there are not sufficient jobs to employ all those currently on unemployment benefits. According to this line of argument the vast majority of those out of work are not avoiding employment by living on unemployment benefits. They are unemployed because there are not sufficient jobs in which they could be employed.
Given this, it is argued, it is not reasonable to expect the unemployed to apply for up to eight jobs a fortnight.
Jude Wallace, vice-president of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, has expressed the following view, `Consider hundreds of thousands of applicants having to apply for eight jobs a fortnight. What jobs? What employers? ... Unemployment benefits are about $160 a week. The government intends to save $100 million. Thousands of benefits will be cut. These people are not all committing welfare fraud. Their benefits will be cut because they cannot create adequate paper records in an economy that does not have enough jobs to go around.'
As an extension of this argument, it has been claimed that many of the unemployed will have to visit businesses where they can have no reasonable hope of employment, just so they can make the diary entries necessary to allow them to keep drawing unemployment benefits.
It has also been claimed that the scheme is unfair to those with poor literacy skills who may find the diary-keeping exercise beyond them, and to those with generally low skill levels who are likely to be demoralised by the requirement that they try harder applying for jobs they will not get.
Further to the claim that the scheme is not fair to the unemployed, it has been suggested that it is no more than a number crunching exercise.
Mr Nathaniel Muller, a 24 year-old job hunter who has been seeking work for the last eighteen months has said, `It represents a big shift in what welfare benefits are all about.'
Mr Muller believes that the new scheme is largely about surveillance and that there is no longer any care being given to train people for jobs for which they are suited.
With regard to the scheme being likely to be ineffective, it has been argued that it will not achieve the savings that the Social Security Minister has claimed for it.
There have been two reasons offered for this.
The first is that it has been claimed that the scheme will not succeed in seeing large numbers of people find employment and so come off unemployment benefits. (Critics claim that the most it is likely to achieve is that large numbers of the unemployed will be taken off unemployment benefits in the short term - for between two and six weeks - only to have to be reinstated.)
The second reason given for it being likely to be ineffective is that the scheme may cost more to implement than it is likely to save.
A leaked government Expenditure Review Committee document has been reported as claiming that running costs for the scheme would be $14.6 million in the first year and $55.5 million over four years. It has also been claimed that Senator Newman's suggestion that it will require only a further 136 people at the Department of Social Security to check diaries is a dramatic under-estimate.
Jude Wallace, of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, has stated, `The scheme will cost millions more than the frauds it detects. Its cost will be borne by the unemployed and hapless, paper-stressed employers.'
On the question of the scheme being cumbersome to implement it has been claimed that it would place an unreasonable burden on employers.
One woman, who has been unemployed for three years and was previously employed as a receptionist, has claimed, `I used to work as a receptionist and would have a lot of people walk in off the street asking for work.
`With this scheme I would have had to take down each person's details and that would be a big imposition on my working time.
`It is really making more work for everybody.'
Similar reservations have been expressed by Mark Paterson, chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who has said, `Any initiative of this kind should be cost effective, not have onerous obligations on employers and not treat recipients of unemployment benefits as second-class citizens.'
Further implications
There have been a number of further implications suggested as a consequence of the `dole diary' scheme. The Commonwealth and Public Sector Union has announced that it will try to prevent its members from processing the diaries. However, a spokesperson for the Minister for Social Security has said that the scheme will proceed irrespective of the CPSU's position.
It is has been suggested that once the scheme is in place a significant number of people will either chose to go off unemployment benefits or will be removed from them as a result of the increased difficulty in acquiring these payments.
This is likely to mean that the demands placed on private welfare agencies, churches and other charitable organisations will increase significantly. For example, those who are removed from unemployment benefits for a fortnight at a time, as a result of not properly maintaining their diaries, are likely to approach welfare agencies for rent assistance or food vouchers.
It also seems possible that numbers of those people who are removed from unemployment benefits may turn to theft or other forms of crime to support themselves.
It also seems likely that increased strain will be put on families where there is no wage earner and that social and emotional problems for the child and adult members of these families will increase. This could manifest itself in increased use of alcohol and other forms of drug abuse.
It has further been suggested that the scheme may be refined so that unemployed people living in areas with few job opportunities may receive a lower unemployment benefit. This would be to encourage them to move to areas where employment chances are better and where they would receive a higher benefit while they sought work.
Such a refinement to the current scheme would be difficult to implement and would, if successful in encouraging people to change their residence, disrupt the informal support networks they had established for in a particular area.
The consequences of other elements of the scheme, such as the `dob in a bludger' hotline have also been considered.
This scheme, together with the diary scheme, has apparently been recently trialed in Tasmania for a two-month period, however, the results of that trial have not been made available. (One lobby group has been reported as claiming that not a single case of welfare abuse was detected.)
Concern has been expressed by civil liberties groups that the hotline scheme might led to abuse, particularly in the form of ill-founded accusations, because information can be phoned in anonymously. This means that those reporting supposed welfare fraud could not be held accountable for rash or malicious accusations.
There has been criticism that these measures have followed on from the government's plans to abolish some labour market (and other training programs for the unemployed) and to make 30 per cent cuts in others.
In addition to this it has been announced that the government will be closing 26 Commonwealth Employment service offices.
Concern has been expressed that the approach of the new government is one of blaming the victim, so that the unemployed are being held responsible for their condition.
Fears have been expressed that this may led to a return to the mentality which saw many of those in employment inclined to view those who were out of work as `dole-bludgers'. The recent Paxton case would seem to indicate the popularity of this view.
The government has suggested that the reverse is likely to be the case and that the tougher provisions will mean that the population at large will be more inclined to believe that those receiving unemployment benefits are genuinely entitled to them.
It will be interesting to note what effect, if any, these schemes will have on the government's electoral prospects. Much will depend on whether the number of unemployed can be reduced and on the degree of sympathy which the electorate as a whole has for the unemployed.
Sources
The Age
15/7/96 page 6 news item, `Dole diary planned for jobless'
16/7/96 page 4 news item by Karen Middleton, `Dole diary will save $100m: minister'
17/7/96 page 6 news item by Innes Willox, `PS union urges dole diary boycott'
17/7/96 page 12 editorial, `Diaries and the dole'
17/7/96 page 13 comment by Padraic P McGuinness, `Getting the unemployed to fill in their time sheets'
The Australian
16/7/96 page 3 news item by Lenore Taylor, `Dole diary to catch out 19,500: Newman'
The Herald Sun
15/7/96 page 12 news item, `Dole diary plan for unemployed'
16/7/96 page 7 news item by Karl Malakunas, `Dole hotline set to start'
17/7/96 page 12 news item by Karl Malakunas, `Anger mounts on dole diary'
17/7/96 page 18 editorial, `Keeping a dodgy diary'
17/7/96 page 18 comment by Paul Gray, `Blaming the victim'
18/7/96 page 18 head-to-head opinions, `Should dole
beneficiaries have to keep a dole diary?'
20/7/96 page 15 news item by Karl Malakunas, `The job to hunt bludgers begins'
20/7/96 page 15 news item by Kylie Hansen, `Feeling a loss of trust'
20/7/96 page 15 news item by Kylie Hansen, `Dole plan makes work for everyone'
What they said ...
`The coalition cuts job-creation schemes. The coalition shuts down CES offices and cuts services for the unemployed and then it sends the unemployed out to knock on employers' doors to fill out diaries for non-existent jobs'
Martin Ferguson, Opposition spokesperson on employment
`We don't believe that the unemployed are dole bludgers ... but we do believe there is a minority who are not serious about looking for work and we mean to do something about that'
Senator Jocelyn Newman, Social Security Minister