Dole Reform: Why Abbott's Approach is Wrong
May 8th 2010 12:50
In fairness, Tony Abbot is right to consider the question of welfare reform.
No system is perfect, and any constructive suggestions for improvement should be welcomed.
But refusing to allow young Australians to get the dole, as per his recent suggestion, would be a mistake. The system can be improved, but this is not the right way to go about it.
Abbot’s proposal
Abbot’s proposal was made at a roundtable briefing involving about fifteen leaders within the resources industry last month.
Under the proposal, people under the age of thirty would not be eligible to receive the Newstart Allowance. Welfare payments would still be available however, to those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities.
The proposal is aimed at encouraging young Australians to actively seek employment, thereby helping to take pressure off the welfare system, ease labor shortages in some sectors and reduce the need to import migrant workers.
Some merits …
Before the proposal can be dismissed, it is important to give due consideration to any potential advantages.
Obviously, it would directly reduce the number of welfare recipients, and this would indeed take some pressure off the system. And whilst most recipients actively seek employment, it must be acknowledged that a small minority do develop a dependence on welfare. Denial of welfare at an early age would help stop this from happening.
.. but a stronger case against
But these are far outweighed by a number of strong arguments against the plan:
• Most dole recipients actively seek work.
First, let’s explode any myths about welfare recipients being ‘dole bludgers.’
Whilst some do game the system, these people represent a tiny proportion of all welfare recipients. The vast majority have no desire to remain unemployed and are proactive in their job search efforts.
Personally, in my own case (I myself am currently looking for work), I apply for around eight different jobs each week. I am also doing volunteer work, studying part time and am constantly engaged in networking related efforts.
Another common myth is that getting a job is easy for those who are really serious. Not true – there have been more than two hundred applicants with regard to some positions for which I myself have recently applied.
• No solution for skills shortages.
Whilst it is true that action needs to be taken to address skill shortages in some areas, it is difficult to see how the proposal would actually help in this regard.
Granted, it would force some off welfare and into work. But many may be forced into unskilled jobs or work of a nature which is unsuitable for the individual involved, which is clearly counter-productive from the viewpoint of productivity.
Nor, for the same reason, will the proposal do much to reduce the welfare burden over the longer term, given that many of those forced into unsuitable employment will not last, and will soon be back on social security.
• Could lead to homelessness and more crime.
Welfare organisations such as the Western Australian Council of Social Services (WACOSS) are right to voice concern about the social implications of such a proposal – particularly those relating to homelessness, malnutrition and crime.
For some, there are alternatives to welfare, such as living with parents or relatives. But this is not the case for everyone, and many would really struggle to costs relating to basic necessities such as food and shelter.
• Better approaches.
Moreover, there are better ways of addressing the type of problems which Abbot identifies.
For a start, the current system is not all that bad. The fundamental concepts underlying the current system (which revolve around support, mutual obligation & responsibility, and partnering with recipients to achieve workable outcomes) are far superior to the punitive ideas surrounding Abbot’s proposal.
And where the system can be improved, there are much better ways to do it.
Abbot is right to consider welfare reform.
But denying dole payments to young Australians is not the way to go.
No system is perfect, and any constructive suggestions for improvement should be welcomed.
But refusing to allow young Australians to get the dole, as per his recent suggestion, would be a mistake. The system can be improved, but this is not the right way to go about it.
Abbot’s proposal
Abbot’s proposal was made at a roundtable briefing involving about fifteen leaders within the resources industry last month.
Under the proposal, people under the age of thirty would not be eligible to receive the Newstart Allowance. Welfare payments would still be available however, to those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities.
The proposal is aimed at encouraging young Australians to actively seek employment, thereby helping to take pressure off the welfare system, ease labor shortages in some sectors and reduce the need to import migrant workers.
Some merits …
Before the proposal can be dismissed, it is important to give due consideration to any potential advantages.
Obviously, it would directly reduce the number of welfare recipients, and this would indeed take some pressure off the system. And whilst most recipients actively seek employment, it must be acknowledged that a small minority do develop a dependence on welfare. Denial of welfare at an early age would help stop this from happening.
.. but a stronger case against
But these are far outweighed by a number of strong arguments against the plan:
• Most dole recipients actively seek work.
First, let’s explode any myths about welfare recipients being ‘dole bludgers.’
Whilst some do game the system, these people represent a tiny proportion of all welfare recipients. The vast majority have no desire to remain unemployed and are proactive in their job search efforts.
Personally, in my own case (I myself am currently looking for work), I apply for around eight different jobs each week. I am also doing volunteer work, studying part time and am constantly engaged in networking related efforts.
Another common myth is that getting a job is easy for those who are really serious. Not true – there have been more than two hundred applicants with regard to some positions for which I myself have recently applied.
• No solution for skills shortages.
Whilst it is true that action needs to be taken to address skill shortages in some areas, it is difficult to see how the proposal would actually help in this regard.
Granted, it would force some off welfare and into work. But many may be forced into unskilled jobs or work of a nature which is unsuitable for the individual involved, which is clearly counter-productive from the viewpoint of productivity.
Nor, for the same reason, will the proposal do much to reduce the welfare burden over the longer term, given that many of those forced into unsuitable employment will not last, and will soon be back on social security.
• Could lead to homelessness and more crime.
Welfare organisations such as the Western Australian Council of Social Services (WACOSS) are right to voice concern about the social implications of such a proposal – particularly those relating to homelessness, malnutrition and crime.
For some, there are alternatives to welfare, such as living with parents or relatives. But this is not the case for everyone, and many would really struggle to costs relating to basic necessities such as food and shelter.
• Better approaches.
Moreover, there are better ways of addressing the type of problems which Abbot identifies.
For a start, the current system is not all that bad. The fundamental concepts underlying the current system (which revolve around support, mutual obligation & responsibility, and partnering with recipients to achieve workable outcomes) are far superior to the punitive ideas surrounding Abbot’s proposal.
And where the system can be improved, there are much better ways to do it.
Abbot is right to consider welfare reform.
But denying dole payments to young Australians is not the way to go.
| 61 |
| Vote |
Comments (2)
Add Comments
