Right: How Fairfax newspapers' cartoonist Spooner saw the latest welfare controversy.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of restricting access to Newstart and Youth Allowance
1. Newstart and Youth Allowance have always been meant as temporary payments
The Government has repeatedly indicated that support supplied to the unemployed should only ever be short-term and that the object of such support should be to maintain people while they find employment. Restricting access to these benefits is seen as a means of reminding the unemployed that their access will only be temporary.
On August 6, 2014, in a speech delivered while in New Zealand, the federal Treasurer, Joe Hockey, stated, 'We need a welfare system that is sustainable and targets assistance to those most in need. It also needs to encourage participation in either work or study.
As a society, we have a social and moral duty to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. However, components of the welfare system - such as job search payments - should be temporary assistance rather than a long-term crutch for people. The goal of these payments should [be to] help transition people back into work.'
It is the federal government's view that individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and that only the most disadvantaged should receive on-going government support. At a speech given at the Sydney Institute on July 12, the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, stated, '[I]t is up to individuals in the community to accept personal responsibility for their lives and their destiny...
It is not the job of government to manufacture the outcome from public policy in such a way as to ensure that every person is an equal beneficiary notwithstanding their personal effort or circumstances...
We must reward the lifters and discourage the leaners.'
In this context, 'lifters' are understood to be taxpayers who are seen as contributing positively to society and 'leaners' are the unemployed who are reliant on the financial assistance of taxpayers.
2. The changes will encourage young people to take up further training or find work
It has been claimed that making Newstart and Youth Allowance more difficult to access will encourage young people to find work.
A spokeswoman for social services minister, Kevin Andrews, has stated, 'Introducing a six-month waiting period and time limits on income support payments will give young people a stronger incentive to earn or learn. During the waiting period, jobseekers will have access to a full range of supports to help them become work-ready, such as access to employment services, relevant training or relocation assistance to move to a stronger jobs market.'
In his 2014 budget speech, the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, stated, 'I say to the Australian people, to build a workforce for the future, those who can work, should work.
The benefits of work go far beyond your weekly pay packet. Work gives people a sense of self, and work helps to build a sense of community.
That is why young people should move into employment before they embark on a life on welfare.'
The Government commissioned McClure report into the welfare system has indicated that there are groups within Australian society for whom living on government benefits has become almost automatic.
In a speech given at the Sydney Institute on June 30, 2014, Kevin Andrews described the following scenario, 'A teenager passes most of his day at the local skateboard park. He left school as soon as he could and hasn't had a job for two years. His life is aimless. He has few prospects and little hope. This is a face of welfare.'
The federal government believes that its current changes to Newstart and the Youth Allowance will prevent such entrenched welfare dependence and encourage people to undertake training or commence work.
On September 30, 2014, Coalition backbencher, Ewen Jones, stated that the tough approach would help ensure young unemployed people get jobs.
Mr Jones asked, 'Are we better to say to them, "Look there's your dole - go home, eat Cheezels, get on the Xbox."'
Mr Jones rejects a view of government allowances as financial assistance to do nothing. He has stated, 'There are no free lunches; that's what we must be saying to people in this space.'
3. There are safeguards in place for the genuinely disadvantaged and those with children
People exempt from the six-month waiting period for unemployment benefits are those in full-time education, people assessed as being unable to work more than 30 hours a week, a single parent receiving the family tax benefit, a part-time apprentice, principal carer parent and people eligible for disability employment services.
A spokeswoman for social services minister, Kevin Andrews, said if people found themselves in "extreme hardship" while without an income for six months they could apply to Centrelink for emergency assistance or a referral for further support. The Special Benefit is now available to people who prove extreme hardship and is the equivalent of Newstart or Youth Allowance.
The treasurer, Joe Hockey, has defended the changes, arguing that there are still safety nets in place. While speaking at the National Press Club on May 14, 2014, he was given the scenario of a 25-year-old tradesman made redundant with no savings or family support and asked how such a person would feed himself for six months.
Treasurer Hockey explained that if the man were not given a redundancy payout he would have access to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme which gives people taxpayer-funded redundancy payouts so long as they meet the criteria.
Mr Hockey concluded, 'After you get the redundancy you go into a Centrelink office [where] you will [be] able to have the six-month waiting time reduced by a month per year that you have worked.' This can be done for a maximum of five months, leaving the claimant with only one month during which he cannot draw benefits.
4. The work-for-the-dole scheme will make the unemployed job-ready and is a fairness issue
It has been claimed that the expanded work-for-the-dole program is necessary to supply the unemployed with skills and to bring about a shift in their attitude.
Assistant Minister for Employment, Luke Hartsuyker, has stated, 'Many employers are telling me that young job seekers are presenting at the gates of their business without the basic skills to get by in the workforce.
I mean the very basic skills - turning up on time, how you conduct yourself in the workforce, how to deal with customers...
Regrettably, there is a significant cohort of young people who have become disconnected with earning or learning. I think that's widely known.'
The Department of Human Services conducted a survey which found that in the first three months of 2014 more than 121,000 of the reasons given by jobseekers for not attending interviews were inadequate. These people had their benefits suspended for eight weeks.
Almost one in four of the jobseekers penalised in this manner had slept in, got the date wrong or forgot to attend the interview.
Over 16 per cent did not want to participate because the scheduled time 'was not convenient', they 'did not see the value in attending' or they 'did not care whether they attended or not'.
Ten per cent pretended they had a medical problem, while others said the job did not pay enough, they had 'cultural issues', or had a personal matter they needed to attend to.
Such attitudes have been condemned as inappropriate and the work-for-the-dole scheme is seen as a way of remedying them.
The government has indicated that it is not aiming to punish the unemployed. Rather it wants to make them more work ready, to boost their self-esteem and to allow them to make a contribution to the larger community which is supporting them.
Mr Hartsuyker has stated, 'Those work for the dole programs should not be seen as punitive. There's a skills element to it. There is a community contribution. There's a self-esteem element to it.'
It has been claimed that there is also an equity element involved in work-for-the-dole schemes. Those who receive benefits from the public purse should be required to make contributions toward the public good.
On February 4, 2014, a contributing economics editor to The Australian, Judith Sloan, stated, 'Work-for-the-dole is as much about morality as it is about economics. Where unemployed persons receive financial assistance from the taxpayer, a mutual obligation is triggered.
At a minimum, we expect the unemployed to search hard to find (and accept) a job. But where no jobs are in the offing, it is not unreasonable to expect those without jobs and in receipt of unemployment benefits to participate in socially useful activity. A form of WFTD [work-for-the-dole] was introduced by the Howard government in 1998 following a trial in the previous year. Over the years, the program's scale has varied and there have been various changes.'
5. Australia cannot afford to continue its current level of welfare payments to the unemployed
The changes to unemployment and Youth Allowance eligibility fit into a broader package of welfare cuts and reforms that the Abbott government claims is necessary to take control of what it has described as a 'budget emergency'. The federal government has maintained that current levels of welfare expenditure are unsustainable and that means have to be found to reduce them and bring the budget into surplus.
The government has repeatedly stressed that all welfare payments are drawn from the taxes of the employed and that running deficit budgets imposes a tax debt on future citizens.
With regard to unemployment benefits in particular, it has been claimed that Australia has a significant problem because of a dramatic increase in the number of young people living on welfare payments. Such a growth in welfare dependency is seen as a threat to Australia's future, distorting public expenditure and placing an unreasonable burden on taxpayers now and into the future.
In his 2014 budget speech, the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, stated, 'I say to the Australian people, every dollar we spend in this Parliament comes from you.
If we can get on with the job of fixing this budget, then you and your family will benefit. We will all share in more jobs, greater wealth and greater prosperity.
But unless we fix the budget together, we will leave the next generation a legacy of debt, not opportunity.
As Australians, we must not leave our children worse off. That's not fair. That is not our way.
We are a nation of lifters, not leaners.
[This] budget... delivers a sustainable future for your children, and the generations beyond.'