John Howard's work-for-the-dole scheme: should young people on unemployment benefits be required to work?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
`The only thing compulsory work for the dole does is appease certain parts of the community that do not accept unemployed people receiving their entitlements'
Mr Robert Fitzgerald, the president of the Australian Council of Social Services
`If people stubbornly refuse to do something for the dole then over a period of time they could run the risk of losing it ... It is not unreasonable to expect people to do something in return for a social welfare benefit if you are able to do so'
Mr John Howard, Australian Prime Minister
On February 9, 1997, The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, announced that his government intended to trial a scheme which would require some out-of-work young people between the ages of 16 and 20 to undertake community-based employment.
This proposal has meet with support from some quarters and with opposition from a range of welfare groups, youth agencies and others.
Background
Though the emphasis placed on the figures varies, current statistics suggest that almost one in three young people between the ages of 15 and 19 (who are either working part-time or unemployed and looking for full-time work) cannot find full-time employment.
This suggests a high level of either unemployment or under-employment among Australian youth.
The overall rate of unemployment within Australia is some 8.5%.
A range of measures has been suggested by the current Liberal Government and the preceding Labor Government as means of addressing the problem of unemployment generally and youth unemployment in particular.
In May, 1994, the Keating Government began its Working Nation scheme.
As part of this initiative $6.5 billion was to be spent on training, income support and regional development programs over four years.
The Liberal party, when in opposition, was very critical of much of this program, and many programs overlapping into 1996-97 were scrapped by the Howard Government after it assumed office. (Some, such as the National Employment and Training Taskforce, were retained.)
The Howard Government has claimed that labour market reform (altering some of the terms and conditions under which people are employed) is a better way of encouraging employment growth than the training schemes instituted by the Labor Government.
It has been claimed that the failure of this Howard Government strategy to reduce unemployment in the short-term has led the Government to consider additional possibilities.
In January, 1997, the Howard Government gave out details of a Green Corps program in which 3500 people aged between 17 and 20 could work in conservation programs for up to six months.
The current proposal appears an extension of this previous program.
Mr Howard's present scheme aims to:
* establish 30 pilot programs this year
* involve up to 5000 young people (between 16 and 20 years) in jobs such as assisting the elderly, cleaning parks and streets, working in local libraries or greeting tourists
* have young people paid award rates
* require them to work for hours equal to the value of their unemployment benefits.
The estimated cost of this program is up to $8 million.
The pilot schemes would operate on a compulsory basis in remote regions and on a voluntary basis in larger population centres in regional Australia.
During the election campaign John Howard appears to have stated that once in government his party would not introduce schemes which required people to work for unemployment benefits. Some people have claimed that the current proposal breaks that undertaking.
Arguments in favour of young people being required to work for unemployment benefits
It has been claimed that the work-for-the-dole scheme would benefit the young unemployed on a number of levels.
Firstly, it has been suggested that participation in the scheme would boost the self-esteem of those involved.
According to this line of argument one of the most damaging consequences of unemployment is the effect it can have on young people's self-perceptions or faith in their own abilities.
The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has stated, `What worries me is that people who are out of work for a long time, particularly when they are young, lose or have never acquired the habit of work ... That sort of despondency and despair which can be so destructive of the spirit of younger people is there.'
Mr Howard has expressed his concern that a significant group of young Australians is in danger of becoming permanently `welfare dependent' and that this is as much a psychological condition as it is one forced on people by economic circumstances.
It has been argued that taking part in the workforce would help young people regain or develop their confidence in their ability to perform in the workplace and their readiness to do so.
Secondly, as an extension of this argument, it has been claimed that the scheme would help young people establish the sort of work habits necessary if they are to gain and retain employment.
This position has been developed by P. P. McGuinness, writing in The Age.
Mr McGuinness has commented, `It is true that many people who have become accustomed to living on the dole develop habits and attitudes that make them difficult to employ, even when jobs are available.
There are obvious aspects of this. The inability to get out of bed on time, the unwillingness to face up to regular and often boring jobs, the preference for dressing and appearing like one's peers ...'
It is argued by supporters of the scheme, that the work-for-the-dole proposal would enable young people to gain or regain the work habits which would make them employable.
Thirdly, it has been claimed, the scheme would enable young people to gain valuable skills and experience.
Though the details of its operation have yet to be released, the Prime Minister has been reported as saying that the scheme would involve some TAFE training.
On the question of whether young people should be compelled to participate in such a scheme or risk losing their unemployment benefits, Mr McGuinness concludes, `It is not always a bad thing for a degree of social coercion to be exercised on the young ... it does make sense to offer programs that combine incentives with financial penalties for non-co-operation.'
According to this line of argument those who have lost the habits necessary to gain and keep a job may have to be forced to acquire them or lose their unemployment benefits for a time.
In response to claims that any scheme which involves working for the dole could result in the unemployed being exploited, the Prime Minster has stressed that award wages would apply and hours of work would be controlled.
This position has been cited with approval by Mr David Edwards, the chief executive officer of the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Mr Edwards has said, ` ... participants in the scheme will be paid at the award wages. This is fair and should prevent exploitation. So, too, should the requirement that individual participants only be expected to work the number of hours equivalent to the amount of their dole payment.'
Further there are those who support the scheme because they believe that unemployment benefits should not be treated as an automatic right and that those in receipt of them should be prepared to make a contribution to the broader community which is supporting them.
This position has been put by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard.
Mr Howard has claimed, `If people stubbornly refuse to do something for the dole then over a period of time they could run the risk of losing it ... It is not unreasonable to expect people to do something in return for a social welfare benefit if you are able to do so.'
This view has also been reflected by some within the wider community.
Mr Mohamad Dib, 24, of Lalor, has been reported to have said, `I reckon people on the dole should work. I work and I have to get up at 6am every day, so I think they should have to work as well.'
Finally it has been argued that any action is better than no action.
The Age in its editorial of February 11, concluded, `Ultimately the problem of mass joblessness belongs to all of us and it is our political leaders upon whom the greatest responsibility for finding a solution falls.
`It appears that this is now dawning on Mr Howard and his senior colleagues and for that reason alone, the work-for-the-dole idea ... deserves qualified encouragement.'
A somewhat similar view was put by the New South Wales premier, Mr Carr.
Mr Carr has been reported as having stated, `Youth unemployment is a curse in our society and anything that provides a ray of hope and training and experience is going to be welcomed by us.'
Mr Howard has stressed that the work-for-the dole scheme is not the only initiative his Government will be putting in place.
Mr Howard has stated his belief that when dealing with a difficult and long-standing problem such as unemployment, it is necessary to try a range of strategies in the hope that each will address some aspect of the problem.
`What you've got to do when you have an intractable problem is to try a whole range of things and over a period of time each will make a little contribution,' Mr Howard has said.
Mr Howard has also said that he does not see the initial operation of the scheme as likely to represent its final form. He has stressed that he believes the scheme is one which needs to be trialed.
` ... I've always sort of understood that it (the work-for-the-dole scheme) is something that would need to be piloted, it would need to be trialed ...'
Arguments against young people being required to work for unemployment benefits.
One of the primary arguments offered against young people being required to work for unemployment benefits is that such schemes do not create jobs and therefore do not address the cause of unemployment.
Dr Judith Bessant, in a letter to the editor published in the Age on February 14, 1997, noted, `Youth unemployment rates are not high because most young people lack the work ethic. Youth unemployment is high because the number of young people looking for work is greater than the number of jobs available, reflecting the collapse of the full-time youth labor market ... A serious commitment to help young people into the labor market requires policies aimed at creating `real' jobs ...'
This view has been supported by welfare agencies and youth workers. Representatives of these groups have suggested that the Prime Minister's plan does not address the real causes of youth unemployment.
The Reverend Tim Costello, of the Collins Street Baptist Church, has called the plan a `savage hoax'.
According to this line of argument the Government's scheme is fraudulent, because it appears to promise young people the chance of work without actually creating any additional jobs in which they are likely to find on-going employment.
The claim that placements will only be for a limited period and that they will not lead to work has been made by Mr Mark Longmuir, the executive director of the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria.
Mr Longmuir has claimed that the long-term prospect of work in the public sector is poor and that young people were likely to end up working at places that could not take them on full-time.
It has also been suggested that the scheme may make it more difficult for some young people to find jobs.
Mr Mark Longmuir, the director of the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria, has suggested that scheme actually discriminates against young people as he claims it provides them with no accredited training and may hinder their efforts to try to find real jobs.
According to this line of argument, the scheme has two particular disadvantages for the young unemployed.
The first of these supposed disadvantages is that any training the scheme supplies will, it has been claimed, be incidental.
The Australian, in its editorial of February 11, noted the Prime Minister's assurance that the work for the dole placements would have a training component , but then criticised the Prime Minister's assurance for lacking `any real detail'.
The Australian's February 11 editorial disputed the value of the work for the dole scheme with the following question, `Could not the Government ... offer something more imaginative than the motivational benefits of potting palms for the local council for six months?'
This question acknowledges that the work young people will be required to do will be short-term and suggests that much of it will have limited training value.
Critics of the current proposal have suggested that what is required is a training scheme that will actually assist the young unemployed in becoming work ready by giving them accredited skills. (An accredited skill is one recognised or acknowledged by all employers in a particular field. It is normally the result of a controlled program of training.)
The second major disadvantage the scheme has been said to have for the young unemployed is that it may actually hinder their efforts to obtain on-going employment.
This concern was expressed by a number of young people interviewed by The Herald Sun..
Ms Ivy Carter, of Hawthorn, was reported to have said, `It doesn't give you time to look for other jobs, so what's the point?'
The same view was expressed by John Catanzariti of Ballarat. `It will take them [the young unemployed] away from looking for a job.'
Another argument against the scheme is that it has been suggested that it may actually increase unemployment.
According to this line of argument, employers may put off regularly employed staff and replace them with people receiving unemployment benefits. (This, it has been argued, would result in major savings for the employer , while increasing the number of people without work.)
This concern has been expressed by the chief executive of the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr David Edwards.
Mr Edwards has suggested that any work for the dole scheme would encourage job-shedding. Me Edwards went on to explain his belief that firms would be tempted to seek an unfair advantage over others by sacking some of their paid staff and replacing them with unemployed youth.
Mr Edwards has also suggested that it would be extremely difficult to monitor the scheme in a way that would prevent job shedding.
There have also been concerns expressed that the scheme would be difficult to implement, especially if those working under it were compelled to take part.
This concern has been expressed by a number of local councils which have been apprehensive about possibly having to police young people who were unwilling participants in the scheme.
Mr John Campbell, the president of the Australian Local Government Association and the Deputy Lord Mayor of Brisbane has said, `... if there's a suggestion it should be compulsory, we'd have to look very carefully at that - local government won't be interested if it's required to be some sort of guard.'
Some critics have also expressed concern that the scheme could well lead to the belief that the unemployed were in some way responsible for their condition.
Critics have claimed that care must to taken to ensure that Australia does not reach a point were the victims of unemployment are blamed for their situation.
A spokesperson for the Salvation Army, Mr John Dalziel, has claimed that the Government risked sending a message that it was the fault of young people that they were unemployed.
`We would hate to see the term "dole bludger" used as frequently as it was five or six years ago,' Mr Dalziel said.
Finally it has been claimed that the scheme represents an attack on the principle of unemployment benefits as an entitlement for the legitimately unemployed.
According to this line of argument, because the scheme allows for some young people to be required to take up community or other designated employment or forfeit their unemployment benefits, it undermines the concept that such benefits are a right of the unemployed.
Opponents of young people being compelled to work-for-the-dole maintain that unemployment benefits are a right, made over to the unemployed by the broader community, to ensure they are able to maintain themselves while out of work.
Mr Robert Fitzgerald, the president of the Australian Council of Social Services, has claimed, `The only thing compulsory work for the dole does is appease certain parts of the community that do not accept unemployed people receiving their entitlements.'
Further implications
It seems unlikely that Mr Howard's proposal will come into force in its present form.
Two independents in the Senate, Senator Brian Harradine and Senator Mal Colston have indicated that they would probably oppose such a scheme.
This opposition, coupled with that of Labor and Democrat senators, would mean the bill would not pass the upper house.
However, these are very early days for the proposal. Critics have suggested that Mr Howard released the scheme before it had been properly worked out. Whether that is so or not, it is probable it will be refined in response to the criticisms it has received.
This may make a difference to its chances of passing the Senate. Though each is currently opposed to the proposal, both Senator Harradine and Senator Colston have indicated that they are prepared to examine the Government's plan.
It is possible that the Government may have to make special concessions to the independent senators or modify the scheme in a way that pleases the Democrats before it secures the support of a majority of senators.
The leader of the Democrats, Senator Kernot, has said that the Australian Democrats have `left the door open a little bit' with regard to accepting the plan.
Senator Kernot has said that before her party would accept the scheme it would need assurances that participation would be voluntary and that there would be real job training.
It seems probable that some form of the scheme will come into operation because the problem of youth unemployment is an enduring one.
It is also one, which, some analysts have claimed, is likely to be electorally costly for the Government in rural and regional seats where levels of youth unemployment are particularly high.
Thus, it has been claimed, the Government must be seen to be doing something to address the problem or risk losing electoral support .
The details of the pilot scheme are scheduled to be released in the May Budget. It will be interesting to note how closely it resembles the scheme currently being debated. It will also be interesting to note what other complementary schemes the Government intends to put in place.
Sources
The Age
10/2/97 page 1 news item by Innes Willox and Joanne Painter, `PM pushes for young people to work for dole'
10/2/97 page 2 news item by Caroline Milburn, `Youths say looking for a job in a small town is hard work'
11/2/97 page 1 news item by Innes Willox and Caroline Milburn, `Work-for-dole plan faces Senate defeat'
11/2/97 page 2 news item by Clare Kermond, `Welfare groups blast job plan'
11/2/97 page 10 editorial, `Dole idea needs more thought'
11/2/97 page 11 comment by David Edwards, `Hands up for the helping hand'
12/2/97 page 4 news item by Innes Willox, `PM admits poll pledge ruled out a dole plan'
12/2/97 page 4 comment by Niki Savva, `Sloppiness leaves Howard vulnerable'
12/2/97 page 4 news item, `Councils shun the role of "jailer"'
12/2/97 page 14 letter to the editor by Dr Judith Bessant, `Dole work a sign of bankrupt policy'
12/2/97 page 15 comment by P. P. McGuinness, `Negativity is hard at work against PM's dole scheme'
12/2/97 page 15 comment by Roy Green, `Working all day for your hard-earned pay'
13/2/97 page 8 news item by Innes Willox, `MP denies breaking dole scheme promise'
14/2/97 page 3 news item by Innes Willox, `PM admits to early look at dole plan'
The Australian
10/2/97 page 1 news item by John Short & Sid Marris, `PM forces young to work for dole'
10/2/97 page 4 news item by Sid Morris & Ben Hutchings, `Welfare lobby blasts "insult" to jobless/ Youths predict career harm'
10/2/97 page 4 news item by Ian Henderson, `Job market closed to one in three young people'
11/2/97 page 4 news item by Ewin Hannan, `States hail benefits in youth work for the dole'
11/4/97 page 4 news item by Michelle Gunn & Peter Weekes, `David, manager at 22, jobless statistic at 32'
11/2/97 page 4 news item by Ben Hutchings, `Youth plan condemned'
11/2/97 page 4 news item by Michelle Gunn, `Labour experts divide on value, pitfalls'
11/2/97 page 12 editorial, `Youth work plan is a side issue'
11/2/97 page 13 comment by John Freeland, `Dole plan tainted by cynicism'
The Herald Sun
10/2/97 page 1 & 4 news item by Clinton Porteous, `Work for the dole'
10/2/97 page 4 news item by Claire Heaney, `James prefers real job'
10/2/97 page 4 news item by Claire Heaney, `Welfare blast on dole work'
10/2/97 page 4 comment by Tony Parkinson, `A mild-mannered Fightback!'
11/2/97 page 19 comment by John Dalziel, `Hope for the young'
12/2/97 page 7 news item by Andrew Butcher, `Dole gaffe trips Howard'
12/2/97 page 15 news item by Andrew Butcher & Greta McMahon, `Libs claim dole win' (accompanied by comments of a range of young people)