SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(WORK FOR THE DOLE) BILL 1997
Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page CHAPTER 1 - REPORT
(WORK FOR THE DOLE) BILL 1997
1. Background
1.1 The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Work for the Dole) Bill
1997 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 19 March 1997.
On 26 March 1997 the Senate, on the recommendation of the Selection of
Bills Committee (Report No.6 of 1997), referred the provisions of the
Bill to the Committee for report by 23 June 1997. The Minister for Social
Security, Senator Newman, unsuccessfully moved as an amendment that the
Bill be referred to the Employment, Education and Training Legislation
Committee for report by 14 May 1997.
1.2 The Committee received 40 submissions and these are listed at Appendix
1. A bound volume of the submissions may be obtained from the Committee
Secretariat. The Committee considered the Bill at public hearings in Melbourne
on 18 April, Sydney on 28 April and Canberra on 7 May 1997, receiving
evidence from 26 organisations involving 42 witnesses. Details of the
public hearings are referred to in Appendix 2. Additional information
provided either at or after the public hearings has been included with
the submissions referred to in Appendix 1.
2. The Bill
2.1 The Bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Data-matching
Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990 to provide the framework to
implement the Government's initiative to establish approved programs of
work for persons receiving unemployment payments - referred to as the
Work for the Dole scheme. The Minister's second reading speech states
that `the initiative is based firmly on the principle of mutual obligation:
that it is fair and just that people receiving unemployment allowances
be asked to make a contribution to the community in return'. [1]
2.2 The Minister has said that the Government recognises `that the Work
for the Dole initiative is not a solution to youth unemployment and has
not represented it as such. Real jobs can only be created by the Government
providing a business environment that secures our economic future....[Nevertheless]
the Government considers the Work for the Dole initiative will combat
the drift to despair and despondency felt by many unemployed young people
[and] that young job seekers should be given the chance to add to their
experience and prove their work ethic through participation in projects
which are supported by the community and will be of lasting value to the
community'. [2]
2.3 The objectives of the Work for the Dole scheme, as outlined to the
Committee, contain the following elements which are detailed in Appendix
3:
- Raise young unemployed people's work ethic, through fostering appropriate
work habits and attitudes, and improving self esteem;
- Involve the local community both in projects that provide Work for
the Dole for young people and in helping unemployed young people at
the end of projects;
- Provide communities with projects that are considered to be of value
to the community;
- Ensure that participants and the community accept the principle of
mutual obligation. [3]
2.4 Priority for participation in the pilot Work for the Dole projects
will be given to young people aged 18 to 24 years who have been unemployed
for at least 6 months, with an emphasis given to those unemployed for
12 months or more and not in case management/employment assistance and
not likely to be referred to these within six months. Participation will
not be restricted to that age group with there being scope for participation
by older job seekers in various circumstances and localities. [4]
2.5 It is expected that participation in the pilot projects would be
largely voluntary, although the Bill provides that a person may be required
by the Secretary of the Department of Social Security (DSS) to participate
as part of the activity test or a Newstart Activity Agreement and in order
to be entitled to payment of Newstart Allowance (NSA). The Bill also provides
for an amount of $20 per fortnight to be paid as a supplement to a person's
NSA in recognition of the additional costs of participating in Work for
the Dole projects.
2.6 The number of hours a person would be required to work has been standardised
on the basis of age and having regard to National Training Wage Award
rates of pay. This amounts to 2 days per week for 18 to 20 year olds,
based on a six hour day, or 2.5 days per week for persons aged 21 or over.
They would be required to participate for a maximum of six months. The
Bill also establishes that participation in Work for the Dole projects
will not give rise to an employer/employee relationship for the purposes
of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employees); Safety,
Rehabilitation and Compensation; Superannuation Guarantee (Administration);
and Workplace Relations Acts. [5]
2.7 The Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency (CSDA) is expected to be
involved in advertising the availability of places on projects and encouraging
18-24 year olds to participate in projects by making them aware of the
benefits to be gained from participation. The CSDA will also be responsible
for endorsing and referring volunteers and selecting compulsory participants.
Guidelines on selection criteria for the scheme will include consideration
of an individual's work experience and skills, and will specify procedures
for the selection and referral of participants. [6]
2.8 Pilot Work for the Dole projects will include community assistance
and development projects, sponsored by community organisations, local
or State government organisations and firms. The Explanatory Memorandum
indicates that `projects would typically include maintenance and improvement
of community facilities and infrastructure and programs of community care
and assistance (for example, home maintenance and care of the elderly)'.
[7]
2.9 Regions with high levels of youth unemployment, especially non-metropolitan
regions, will be the focus for the pilot projects. Projects would be nominated
through a public submission process and selected on the basis of criteria
including the needs of the local unemployed young people, the capacity
of the sponsor to monitor and maintain the project, the extent of contribution
and support for the project from the local community, the quality of community
involvement, and preparedness of the community to support the participants
after completion of their placement. The Government's aim is to have 10
000 places in the pilot Work for the Dole projects. There would be no
minimum size for the projects and they would be for a minimum of 3 and
a maximum of 12 months duration. The pilot projects will be evaluated
to assess the impact of the initiative on young people and to assist consideration
of the expansion of the initiative beyond the pilot stage, including the
scope for expanding into different regions. [8]
2.10 Participants, while continuing to receive their unemployment allowance
payments, will still be required to look for work. However, in recognition
of time spent on Work for the Dole projects, job search requirements for
participants will be reduced to the minimum DSS requirement of two employer
contacts per fortnight. New `clean slate' provisions relating to activity
test or administrative breach penalty periods will be introduced, under
which any penalty period to which a person is subject will cease to apply
from the date the person commences in a Work for the Dole project. Existing
standard unemployment allowance provisions of compliance and breaching
arrangements will apply to any penalty period incurred after starting
in the project. [9]
3. Issues
General comments
3.1 The Committee was presented with a range of attitudes towards the
Work for the Dole scheme in the evidence which it received. The attitudes
ranged from broad support for the philosophy and objectives underpinning
the scheme, through conditional support subject to reservations about
the scheme's operation and administration, to outright opposition. This
range of attitudes is exemplified by the following comments:
- `ALGA recognises that there is considerable interest in the “work
for the dole” scheme among a number of Councils throughout Australia
[and] would be pleased to work with the Commonwealth in relation to
the further development of the work for the dole scheme' Australian
Local Government Association.
- `What we have heard of the scheme... has led us to the opinion that
it does have a lot of positive merit... Our interest in the legislation
is because it is all part of the matrix of welfare policy... This seems
to us to be a fair dinkum attempt to give some people some positive
options... it is indicative of a new direction instead of the same old,
tired approach' Open Family.
- `We would be keen to trial the process in various demographic regions
using a variety of models' Mission SA.
- `The indication we have is that, if it were voluntary, we have the
infrastructure and the networks in local communities in more than 350
locations around the country to do it easily [ie participate in the
scheme]. With compulsion, I have to be honest and say that some of our
member organisations say that they would do it anyway' Skillshare.
- `We support the intent of the scheme to motivate young people and
to integrate them into the community. We do not support the punitive
aspect of it.' Anglicare.
- `The Mission in principle has support for the work for the dole program.
However, it wishes to lodge a number of reservations and serious concerns'
Mission Australia.
- `The Commission's position is simply that it is against the compulsory
nature of the program...provided people are in a position to make a
voluntary decision about entry into the program, we have no problems
with the scheme' Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission.
- `The Brotherhood will continue to provide services which assist unemployed
people to obtain jobs, we will not participate in a compulsory work
for the dole program' Brotherhood of St Laurence.
- `The ACTU believes that the current proposal... is inappropriate and
it requires significant amendment for us to give it support.' Australian
Council of Trade Unions.
- `The Australian Council of Social Service is opposed to this legislation.'
ACOSS. [10]
3.2 The Committee believes that many of the claims and reservations given
expression in these attitudes and throughout much of the evidence, were
uninformed or misrepresented the aims and objectives of what is to be
achieved through the Work for the Dole scheme. In fact, many of the issues
raised by various organisations have been considered by the Government
and are already included in the objectives and guidelines which will control
the scheme's operation and administration. The Committee has addressed
these issues which were raised in evidence during its deliberations on
the Bill and responds to them in this section of the report.
3.3 The Government has acknowledged from the outset that this scheme
was not intended to be a solution to youth unemployment and that real
jobs could only be created through other government initiatives. The Minister
indicated in the second reading speech that the Government had implemented
a number of policies to address this issue by providing a business environment
that secures Australia's economic future. These policies included reducing
the administrative burden on small business, providing incentive to small
business owners to expand their businesses through Capital Gains Tax relief,
and abolishing unfair dismissal laws thereby removing a significant disincentive
for business to take on new employees. [11]
3.4 Nevertheless, a number of submissions argued that any scheme addressing
employment issues needs to recognise that the main barrier to getting
a job was that there are simply not enough full-time jobs available to
young people. [12] The National Union
of Students (NUS) argued that `significant levels of unemployment and
under-employment are now structural features of the economy [and] as such,
there will constantly be a pool of labour which is unable to gain work
irrespective of their efforts to do so'. [13]
3.5 The reality of this situation for young job seekers was described
by representatives from the Moreland City Council who told the Committee
that the central employment problem in the northern region of Melbourne
`has not been the lack of motivation of young people but a declining employment
base and a shift in the pattern of employment from labour intensive industries.
The jobs that are available are increasingly of a part-time or casual
nature'. [14]
3.6 The Launceston Community Legal Centre (LCLC) indicated that from
their experience `the overwhelming majority of unemployed people are taking
their obligations to find work seriously and in the rare case where they
are not the sanctions that are currently in place are being effectively
applied to them'. [15] This point was
also made in evidence as people sought to debunk the negative perception
about young people by emphasising the fact that the overwhelming majority
of unemployed young people are keen to work in full-time, secure employment,
want to feel as though they are contributing something worthwhile to society'
and have a `genuine desire to do something about their predicament of
being unemployed'. [16] The Work for
the Dole scheme provides an opportunity for young people to fulfil this
desire.
3.7 Generally, the underlying principle of mutual obligation was not
opposed, although there were claims that there was an inequality in expectations.
The Shoalhaven Area Consultative Committee (SACC) typified the views of
many when it referred to the strong community expectation that in providing
the welfare payment through community taxation, the community expects
to see a modest return for that payment. At the same time, the community
sees great potential in assisting unemployed people in gaining skills,
work experience, networking and at the very least exposure to and development
of a work ethic. [17]
3.8 The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the Salvation
Army both argued that the Work for the Dole scheme, although conceding
that the scheme was not regarded as a labour market program, has altered
the balance of obligations from previous schemes where the government
provided income support and access to quality labour market assistance
in return for a commitment from unemployed people to seek work and to
participate in programs which will improve their employment prospects
and which are appropriate to their needs. The Salvation Army noted that:
the current raft of Social Security legislation was based on a concept
of `reciprocal obligation'. It now appears from the Object of the Bill
that the concept of reciprocal obligation has been somehow changed into
`mutual obligation'. Reciprocal obligation and mutual obligation appear
to be two very different things with mutual obligation demanding a much
higher standard of personal compliance in order to receive support. [18]
3.9 While the Government has been upfront with the community and calling
the Work for the Dole scheme exactly what it is (which has gained wide
understanding and support), there were some questions as to the principle
of mutual obligation and comments concerning the language used in the
Bill title of `Work for the Dole'. The term `dole' was perceived by many
as having very negative connotations, a perception which was in part associated
with media reporting. The title was described as `completely inappropriate',
with the word `dole' being regarded as a perjorative term by many Australians
due to its association with the expression `dole bludger' and the inference
that an unemployed person who is receiving income support is necessarily
`lazy' and `indolent' and not interested in gaining work. It was argued
that `the use of such images does not reflect the reality of, nor is helpful
to discussions about, the causes and impacts of unemployment in our community'.
[19]
3.10 The Belconnen Unemployed Youth Taskforce (BUYT) also claimed that
the Bill title would effect the self esteem and status of young job seekers
by enshrining in the legislation `the concept that most young unemployed
people are work-shy and not genuine job seekers'. However, BUYT recognised
that the initiative is based on the principle of mutual obligation believing
that this includes an obligation to support and encourage young job seekers.
They suggested that the word `Work for the Dole' should be replaced with
`Approved Program of Work for Unemployed Payment' or `Mutual Obligations',
noting that `there are any number of potential titles with a positive
ring'. [20]
3.11 A positive interpretation was given by Mr Nathan Stirling, representing
Open Family. Whilst noting that `dole' has an `extremely negative connotation',
Mr Stirling suggested that `the idea of work for the dole would, in our
view, offer the option to various young people to feel that they were
actually doing something for the income support that they were getting.
Therefore, we see that as decreasing the possibility of alienation If
it is just offering that opportunity for a group of young people to feel
that they are going to be more productive and hence be less depressed,
less bored and so forth then, in that sense, we think it is worthy of
giving it a go'. [21]
3.12 The Committee received submissions and evidence that referred to
overseas experience with various work for welfare programs, especially
in the United States and Canada. Although there was no supporting evidence
given that these overseas programs could not be directly related to the
Work for the Dole scheme in their objectives and operation, it was claimed
that reviews of these programs have demonstrated a range of difficulties
arising from their operation, including the impact of compulsion on individual
self esteem, displacement of paid employment, inability to stream people
into real jobs, lack of appropriate training and pressure on wages. [22]
3.13 The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
(DEETYA) addressed the relevance of these overseas programs, advising
the Committee that it was difficult to draw parallels with overseas schemes
because very few schemes had `a commonality of objective' with the proposed
Work for the Dole scheme. DEETYA referred to what are generically called
`workfare' schemes operating in North America and recent project work
in the UK, and indicated that:
There are very few examples we have found that are directly targeted
at recipients of unemployment benefit which operate in countries where
unemployment benefit is not a contributory type arrangement, for example,
or not an insurance type arrangement. There are very few where the objectives
are as explicit as [Australia's] in terms of providing work experience,
re-engaging participants with their communities and re-engaging communities
in support of young unemployed people. They are more directed at getting
them off the welfare system. [23]
Participation
3.14 A number of organisations commented on issues relating to participation
in the scheme. The Government has clearly stated that, while priority
for participation in the pilot work projects will be given to young people
aged 18-24 who have been unemployed for at least 6 months, the benefits
of participation will not be restricted to that age group. Even though
participation in the scheme will not be restricted to young people, it
was argued that any limitation in participation would be `a discriminatory
action against a portion of the unemployed population based solely on
age' [24] and that `if the objective
of the proposal is to make participants give something back in return
for their benefits then this group is no more deserving of attention than
any other'. [25]
3.15 The benefits of including `older' participants, as is provided for
in the scheme, were referred to by some organisations. In the view of
the Shoalhaven Area Consultative Committee (which has developed a similar
scheme to operate in the Shoalhaven region of NSW) `restricting the age
group reduces the overall community benefit in that unemployed “older”
people also can offer the community and the younger unemployed the richness
of their experience and wisdom Projects will benefit with a mix of all
unemployment categories'. [26] Mission
Australia concurred saying that `there are major advantages of older and
younger participants mixing together for a major period of time with youth
and the experienced both enhancing each others lives in many positive
ways'. [27] The Australian Youth Policy
and Action Coalition (AYPAC) saw merit in older job seekers participating
in the scheme in a mentoring capacity, in preference to being used as
`supervisors'. [28]
3.16 The Salvation Army was relaxed with the scheme's priority, indicating
that `if the purpose of the scheme is to give young people experience
in a work environment we have no difficulty with the scheme being targeted
at a specific age group'. [29] However,
their preferred approach would be to provide the opportunity for people
in all age groups to participate voluntarily in programs and actively
encourage their involvement in community activities and work which gives
them a sense of contributing to the general well being of their local
community. [30]
3.17 The Committee received evidence on the effect of Work for the Dole
on participation within particular groups. Mission Australia advised that
a number of its centres work with NESB people who would benefit greatly
through working in the scheme as they could start to understand Australian
culture and gain experience and knowledge of the Australian workplace.
[31] The importance of the scheme in
providing assistance for NESB people was highlighted by the Migrant Employment
Taskforce (MET) who advised the Committee that Work for the Dole was likely
to have a disproportionately greater impact on NESB migrants because on
average NESB migrants experience higher rates of unemployment than people
from Australian born and English speaking backgrounds, although unemployment
rates do vary enormously between different ethnic communities. [32]
3.18 The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria (YACVic) and UNIYA also referred
to the disadvantage created by the excessive unemployment rates faced
by particular groups of young people and the possible impact of the scheme
for participants from within these groups, which include young people
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, young people from
ethnic minorities, young people in declining rural or urban communities
and young people with a background of educational or social disadvantage.
[33]
3.19 ACROD members indicated that they saw potential opportunities in
the scheme for people with disabilities, although they also had concerns
about the potential of the scheme to displace people with disabilities
from existing and potential paid jobs and in relation to voluntary activity.
ACROD submitted that:
The scheme can provide new opportunities for some people with disabilities
directed to the Scheme provided that appropriate support is provided and
provided that there is a consistent rationale in direction to the Scheme
as opposed to direction to other labour market and specialist disability
employment services. In the disability field many people who are in receipt
of income security, mainly the disability Support Pension, already `work
for the Pension'. [34]
3.20 Other comments relating to the issue of participation involved the
period of unemployment and time allowed for job search. The North Queensland
Joint Board (NQJB) questioned the targeting of participation to young
people who have been unemployed for at least 6 months by asserting that
after 6 months youths have often learnt to adequately manage on the dole,
self-esteem has already plummeted and motivation is very low. The NQJB
believed that it would be more cost effective to help keep up their spirit,
drive and enthusiasm in the first place rather than letting them fall
by the wayside and trying to pick up pieces after the damage has been
done. The NQJB recommended that no minimum restrictions as to length of
unemployment be placed on youths wishing to participate in Work for the
Dole. [35]
3.21 The Welfare Rights Centre (WRC) noted that job searching takes time
and effort in looking through newspapers and CES boards, making phone
calls, preparing application letters and attending interviews and suggested
that this process could interfere with a job-seekers ability to perform
24-30 hours work for the dole. The WRC was concerned that people should
not be breached for job searching whilst on work for the dole. [36]
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has included in
its principles on the work for the dole pilot scheme `provision of ample
time for the participant for job search'. [37]
3.22 DSS anticipated that individuals who volunteer or who are required
to participate in the scheme will have an activity agreement which clearly
indicates minimum job search requirements and the requirement to continue
in their Work for the Dole placement. DSS noted that `activity agreements
provide the flexibility to tailor activities on an individual basis with
regard to the person's needs and capacity to comply... [H]owever, in recognition
of the time spent on a Work for the Dole project, the number of employer
contacts required of participants will be reduced to the minimum of two
per fortnight'. [38]
3.23 DEETYA advised that the guidelines which specify the characteristics
of participants will be applied by the Commonwealth Services Delivery
Agency. DEETYA responded to the comments made by various organisations
indicating that:
There will be some flexibility regarding the age and duration of unemployment
of participants especially where there were insufficient numbers of young
people in the priority group to fill projects. In addition, projects may
benefit significantly from including older job seekers to provide a more
balanced environment for younger participants and pass on their expertise
to younger participants. In these cases, volunteers may be sought from
the older unemployed. [39]
Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page
Footnotes:
[1] Minister's second reading speech, House
of Representatives Hansard, 19 March 1997, p.2399.
[2] ibid.
[3] Transcript of Evidence 7.5.97, pp.3-4,
16-17 and Additional Information, dated 8 May 97 (DEETYA).
[4] Submission No.23, p.4 (DSS); Submission
No.34, p.3 (DEETYA).
[5] House of Representatives Hansard,
19 March 1997, p.2400 and Explanatory Memorandum, p.4.
[6] Submission No.23, p.4 (DSS).
[7] Explanatory Memorandum, p.4.
[8] Minister's second reading speech, House
of Representatives Hansard, 19 March 1997, p.2400.
[9] Submission No.23, p.2 (DSS).
[10] Submission No.13, p.3 (ALGA); Transcript
of Evidence 18.4.97, pp.174, 177-8 (Open Family); Submission No.6,
p.2 (Mission SA); Transcript of Evidence 18.4.97, p.157 (Skillshare),
p.126 (Anglicare); 28.4.97, p.202 (Mission Australia), p.204 (ACSWC);
18.4.97, p.125 (BSL); 28.4.97, p.210 (ACTU), p.183 (ACOSS).
[11] House of Representatives Hansard,
19 March 1997, p.2400.
[12] Submission No.14, p.2 (YAPA); Submission
No.30, p.7 (LCLC); Transcript of Evidence 28.4.97, p.206 (UNIYA).
[13] Submission No.21, p.1 (NUS).
[14] Transcript of Evidence 18.4.97,
p.143 (MCC)
[15] Submission No.30, p.7 (LCLC).
[16] Transcript of Evidence 18.4.97,
p.139 (The Salvation Army); 28.4.97, p.218 (AYCWM); Submission No.15,
p.1 (YACVic). See also Additional Information, 26 May 1997, Attachment
B - Information on work attitudes and work ethic of young jobseekers (DEETYA).
[17] Submission No.5, p.1 (SACC).
[18] Submission No.18, p.6 (The Salvation Army).
See also Submission No.24, pp.4-5 (ACOSS); Transcript of Evidence
18.4.97,p.163 (Ms B Pike, Evatt Victoria Centre).
[19] Submission No.18, p.7 (The Salvation Army);
Submission No.10, p.2 (BSL); Submission No.20, p.3 (Anglicare). ACOSS
notes that unemployment benefits have not been officially described as
`the dole' since the 1930's Submission No.24, p.5 (ACOSS).
[20] Submission No.7, pp.2 and 11 (BUYT).
[21] Transcript of Evidence 18.4.97
p.174 (Open Family).
[22] Submission No.19, pp.2-3 and 8-12 (MET)
[This submission appends a 5 page bibliography taken from the Internet
of articles and other written material on US and Canadian work for welfare
programs]; Submission No.18, Additional Information, 1 May 1997, Attachment
A - Work for the Dole: The overseas experience (The Salvation Army); Submission
No.27, pp.2-3 (AYPAC).
[23] Transcript of Evidence 7.5.97,
p.8 (DEETYA). See also Additional Information, 26 May 1997, Attachment
A - Summary of overseas experiences in `work for benefit' type projects
(DEETYA).
[24] Submission No.27, p.1 (AYPAC).
[25] Submission No.19, p.7 (MET). See also
Submission No.7, p.3 (BUYT); Submission No.28, p.3 (Mission Australia).
[26] Submission No.5, p.2 (SACC).
[27] Submission No.28, p.3 (Mission Australia).
[28] Submission No.27, p.2 (AYPAC).
[29] Submission No.18, p.1 (The Salvation Army).
[30] ibid, p.2.
[31] Transcript of Evidence 28.4.97,
p.203 (Mission Australia).
[32] Transcript of Evidence 28.4.97,
p.227 and Submission No.19, p.3 (MET).
[33] Submission No.15, p.1 (YACVic); Transcript
of Evidence 28.4.97, pp.200-201 (UNIYA).
[34] Submission No.25, p.2 (ACROD).
[35] Submission No.9, p.1 (NQJB).
[36] Submission No.26, p.9 (WRC); see also
Submission No.7, pp.9-10 (BUYT).
[37] Submission No.31, p.2 (ACCI).
[38] Submission No.23, p.2 (DSS).
[39] Submission No.34, p.6 (DEETYA).