By Chris James & Darin Ritchie
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has proposed restricting access to unemployment benefits for Australians under 30 years of age.
Mr. Abbott is quoted as saying:
“There has got to be a system which encourages people to take up work where that work is available and certainly the idea of having people on the dole where there is relatively unskilled work freely available, I think the Australian public don’t like that idea very much.”
However, while people must be encouraged to move from welfare to work, an arbitrary approach runs the risk of putting employers in a difficult position. Coercion could lead to a conscripted labour force with individuals not committed to their job or industry. Job seekers lacking basic employability skills or relevant technical skills present an added burden to employers who would have to take primary responsibility for the failures of the education system.
What do you think of this plan to cut unemployment benefits? Take our poll to have your say!
The key to this issue is how we define and apply mutual obligation on those individuals who are receiving government financial support and are able to work.
Twelve years ago, the then Employment Minister, Tony Abbott, introduced the “Work for the Dole Scheme”. At the time it was met with strong opposition, but the concept of mutual obligation demonstrated that a ‘push’ can have a positive effective and is now accepted by the community as uncontroversial.
Abbott’s latest suggestion follows this thinking, and is in fact not that far removed from the logic underpinning the Brumby Government’s Youth Guarantee and The Rudd Government’s “earn or learn” Jobs Compact; albeit, the former prefers the stick while the latter use the carrot.
Australians generally agree that having a social safety net is desirable to give people ‘a fair go’ and moderate the devastating impact of sudden changes in personal circumstances or severe economic downturns.
However, we’re also readily aware of the debilitating trap that passive welfare can become. It can result in a deterioration in people’s employability skills, relationships, finances, health, and general life prospects. The longer individuals remain on welfare, the more likely they are to acquire additional barriers and the harder it is to return to work. This is particularly the case for young people who have little or no work experience, and have low educational attainment.
Sometimes a “push” can do people a favour.
The big picture concern for Australia is that in the face of skill shortages, and long term population ageing, we cannot afford to fully utilise our labour force and we should not be complacent about the risk of surrendering a generation of young people to an under-fulfilled existence.
What do you think of Abbott’s suggestion? Cast your vote in our online poll and join in the discussion by leaving a comment.
I think a blanket ban on those under 30 receiving the dole is dumb. However, I aslo think that the current system of getting the dole & the tricks some use to still qualify for it works either. So why not compromise. Does the dole vary based on other household income? Maybe it should also have to be earned after being received for a certain period (say 12 months without any work eg temp work). Relocating interstate to have work is a bit extreme but maybe it needs to be an option for those long-term unemployed. However, this is not a cost saving measure – they should be supported to move inter-state. Those few unskilled workers that live with their parents & have very little expenses should be cracked down – however, there are currently allot bigger problems to deal with than them – LIKE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY!!!!!
I believe there is a real demoralising affect on individuals that receive the Dole. Not only do they not have the general support of the community they also do not have the same social networks of those people employed. By all means continue to make people accountable for receiving payments, but don’t marginalise them even more saying they are not worth being looked after when times are tough.
I am all for cleaning up the system as we all know there are plenty of people abusing it…but I don’t think a “blanket” rule for everyone under the age of 30 should appply.
My partner has not been able to find stable employment for 18 months and it’s not from a lack of trying. Unless you live close to a large city or are willing to live away from family (i.e. Fly in/Fly out employment) then employment can still be very difficult to find.
You take two scenarios – Family 1: only one partner works earning under $80k, supports a partner and 2 children while renting.
Family 2: One partner works earning over $120K, the other partner does not work, they have no children, own a farm worth over $1m (which also earns a decent income) and also a rental property which is fully owned.
Yet family 2 get centrelink payments…The whole system needs to be tightened up; in our experience if you are honest you don’t get a cent. It absolutely astonishes me that the needy have to fight for every cent, while the ones who are cheating the system get plenty.
My two children’s experience with the concept of leaving our small country town, firstly to go to university and then to enter the workforce, one in Canberra/Brisbane/Sydney/Brisbane and the other in Perth, made me confident that people can move far from home without losing touch with their family or friends and be happy.
The next issue becomes having the skills and aptitude required to take on a job that is available; a necessity for an effective transition.
Therefore, I think that young people should be encouraged to look as far afield as is necessary and to see the positives in having a job but I doubt that forcing them to take a distant job would be effective.
I’m half agree, and half disagree.
I’m all for no dole to school leavers. They should be able to pick up work or go to school to learn a trade to find a job.
But for those who have been in work and have lost there jobs – just because they are under 30, they should not be treated any different to someone who is 31 or 41.
Firstly, I would like to say that I think VECCI is just jumping on the media bandwagon. What Mr Abbott actually said and how it has been reported in the media are two fundamentally different things.
Aside from that, looking at the actual issue at hand I am tired of the focus on unskilled employees and unskilled work.
Several years ago I had 2 1/2 years of ‘retrenchment’ and inevitably became dependent on the welfare system. This was at a time of collapses of the likes of HIH and Ansett so there was a glut of professionals via for the same roles. The system does not consider the needs of the professional sector and I was obligated to sit through training and meetings designed for people with no skills.
I don’t believe Mr Abbott would be suggesting that someone with tertiary quals and related industry experience should be shifting to WA and picking up a spade.
I am a HR Manager for a manufacturing company and we currently have a huge amount of overtime available for our staff (which is largely made up of unskilled labourers).
80% of our staff will not agree to do overtime as the increase in their wages will affect their Centrelink benefits and access to Commission housing.
I am all for having a support network there for those Australians who really need it however, there needs to be tougher laws that deal with people who are using the system!
There’s no point forcing people to take jobs they don’t want – who wants workers like that? My daughter has been looking for work for 6 months and would take just about anything now, but whether a mine in WA could use her (limited) skills or be willing to train her and help with accommodation (the biggest hurdle to getting more workers in most mining towns) is another matter.