One of the big stories over the weekend was that the Coalition Government is seeking to re-introduce the Howard Government era mutual obligation scheme – work-for-the-dole – which would put unemployed Australians to work in rotations within the local government and community sectors.
The types of jobs that would be offered to the jobless would include such tasks as rubbish collection and park maintenance, with the roles limited to three months in order to prevent employers from replacing their permanent workers with unemployed volunteers, according to Business Spectator.
Assistant Minister for Employment, Luke Hartsuyker, claims that the program would be compulsory, noting that the Coalition is “looking at new and innovative ways to involve people in work-for-the-dole” and that “we think everyone who is capable of working should be working”. Anyone that refused to work would lose their Newstart payment.
As expected, the Australian Services Union has slammed the scheme, arguing that it would put paid labour out of work, and that unemployed “work gangs” could get paid under stipulated award levels.
For his part, the opposition’s assistant treasury spokesman, Andrew Leigh, has noted evidence showing the Howard Government’s work-for-the-dole scheme did not work, with a 2004 study by Melbourne University researchers finding that work-for-the-dole actually increased joblessness, since it ended up diverting people from job search activities into work for the dole activities. According to the study’s abstract:
This study examines the effect of a community-based work experience program – Work for the Dole (WfD) – on transitions out of unemployment in Australia… Participation in the WfD program is found to be associated with a large and significant adverse effect on the likelihood of exiting unemployment payments. The main potential explanation is existence of a ‘lock-in’ effect whereby program participants reduce job search activity.
Regardless, when viewed alongside the Government’s announced review of the Newstart and disability pensions, amid claims of unsustainable “blowouts” in welfare spending, it is becoming clear that the nation’s vulnerable are going to bear the brunt of any Budget cuts, whilst the Government continues to ignore taxpayer support provided to the wealthy.
Fairfax’s Clancy Yeates perhaps said it best over the weekend when it comes to the Government’s Budget priorities:
…several of the Coalition’s first moves since taking government have clearly been in the interests of the wealthy.
Take superannuation, something that is likely to be the biggest asset many people own in decades to come. One of the first things the government did was to scrap Labor’s plan to tax a small minority of funds that pay members a pension of more than $100,000 a year.
At the same time, it is removing a tax break to allow concessional super contributions for workers earning less than $37,000 because it was funded by the mining tax.
Or there is welfare. Last week the government announced a sweeping review of so-called unsustainable income support payments that inevitably go to the lowest-paid, such as disability support pensions.
But a $5.5 billion-a-year parental leave scheme that will pay women earning up to $150,000 a year as much as $75,000? Sure thing.
While much of the world is at least talking about narrowing the gap between rich and poor, the same cannot be said for our government.
Spot on!
unconventionaleconomist@hotmail.com
