SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(WORK FOR THE DOLE) BILL 1997
Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page
MINORITY REPORT - AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY
Senator Chris Evans (ALP), Senator John Faulkner
(ALP), Senator Sue Mackay (ALP),
Senator Belinda Neal (ALP), Senator Kerry O'Brien (ALP), Senator
Sue West (ALP)
A. INTRODUCTION
This Bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act to provide the framework
to implement a “Work for the Dole” scheme as announced by the
Prime Minister on 9 February 1997.
The wide range of written and oral submissions to the Committee by community
organisations have overwhelmingly criticised the Bill.
The Chairman's Report fails to reflect the strongly critical nature of
these submissions and its response to the substance of such criticisms
is patronising and inadequate, such as when it states that:
tThe 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. [105].
The following serious concerns raised by community organisations in both
the written and oral submissions must be addressed:
- The danger of existing workers being displaced;
- The failure of the scheme to provide structured training and skills
development which may lead to real jobs;
- The potential for this scheme to divert resources away from recognised
training;
- The compulsory nature of the scheme;
- The failure to adequately address issues such as duty of care, health
and safety standards and the need for accredited training; and
- The discriminatory nature of the scheme.
Principle of Mutual versus Reciprocal Obligation
This Bill is purportedly based on the principle of mutual obligation;
that it is only fair that, in return for receipt of unemployment benefits,
young people should work. However, as ACOSS points out, no evidence was
presented to the committee of any generalised weakening of work ethic
among young people. Moreland Council stated that while the "Work
for the Dole"Work for the Dole scheme:
emphasises the concept of mutual obligation between the young unemployed
and society because of the financial benefit paid to them, it may also
erode another important obligation: for society, through government, to
provide real jobs for all its members. [106].
This Bill fails to acknowledge the obligations key responsibilities of
the governmentGovernment in relation to our unemployed. According to the
leaders of Australia's Christian churches, to compel people to work merely
in exchange for unemployment payments:
will signify on the part of this Government its abrogation of
the responsibility to provide for the subsistence needs of unemployed
people by reducing income support entitlements to gratuitous "handouts"
to be earned". [107].
This view is typical of the community groups' evidenceinput to this Committee.
Accordingly, we recommend substantial amendments to the bill which seek
to extend the governmentGovernment's very limited concept of “mutual
obligation” - which, contrary to the assertion in the Chairman's
Report, was not widely supported in the submissions to the Committee
- towards the much more appropriate concept of “reciprocal obligation”,
whereby the governmentGovernment has an obligation to provide unemployment
payments to those who want work and cannot get it and to create real training
opportunities and jobs for the unemployed, and discharges all the components
of its obligation.
This obligation includes not just providing unemployment payments to
those who want work and cannot get it; it also involves the creation of
real training opportunities and jobs for the unemployed.
Evidence of displacement of people in paid employment
Abundant evidence from overseas, and in particular the United States,
was presented to the Committee to indicate that programs similar to "Work
for the Dole"Work for the Dole have led to the displacement of people
in existing paid employment.
This was most comprehensively documented in the submissions and testimony
from the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition (AYPAC).
[108]. The Migrant Employment Taskforce
also gave evidence that in New York unemployed workers are increasingly
being forced to do tasks normally assigned to full-time workers. They
referred also to the Ontario Works project where:
the use of unpaid welfare recipients to perform social services
may prove very compelling for cash-strapped municipalities. [109].
Displacement has been evidenced particularly in municipal projects -
such as blue-collar workers in the parks and gardens departments of local
Councils - of the very kind envisaged in the present Bill. [110].
It is disturbing that DEETYA's response in its initial written submission
was to claim little knowledge of this readily available international
evidence [111] and then in its later
testimony to the Committee to seek to dismiss this evidence as irrelevant.
[112].
The Chairman's Report relies upon this contention by DEETYA that “...displacement
of existing workers would not be a major issue with regard to work for
the dole”. [113]. The Chairman's
Report also states that the need for "Work for the Dole"work
for the dole projects to represent additional work will be taken into
account in the "criteria for project selection". [114].
However, one of the primary lessons from US experience of similar schemes
is that legislative protection is in fact required to prevent displacement
of paid workers. In its written submission, the Migrant Employment Taskforce,
in reference to Work Experience Program (WEP) participants in New York,
stated:
While the program's rules clearly state that WEP participants
are trainees to be assigned work that city workers normally would not
do, WEP assignees frequently do some of the work once done by employees
who have retired, quit, been laid off... they are prominent in those
areas which have suffered the greatest job cutbacks. [115].
Specific laws have needed to be enacted in the US State of Minnesota,
for instance, to prevent the effects of "Work for the Dole"work
for the dole schemes in destroying real jobs.
Given the widespread and escalating concerns about job security among
workers in Australia, we recommend that the Bill itself should be amended
to ensure that the Employment Secretary requires as a matter of law that
any new approved programs of work do not displace people currently
in employment.
Need to ensure sufficient funds are available to pay people at appropriate
award wage rates
Evidence was provided to the committee that similar programs to Work
for the Dole have been associated with grossly unequal wages for people
doing exactly the same work and have contributed to the creation of a
large class of working poor.
Comprehensive evidence was also presented to the Committee by AYPAC and
others [116] of the possibility of
the scheme leading to unequal wages for people doing the same work, and
to downward pressure on wages, based on extensive overseas experience,
and to the creation of a large class of working poor.
Accordingly we believe that it is essential that the provisions of the
Bill be strengthened to ensure that sufficient funds are made available
for participants to be paid a rate of Newstart Allowance which is equivalent
to the relevant National Training Wage award rate for the hours the person
participates in the program.
Need for accredited training to be incorporated into the scheme
Many organisations in their submissions and evidence to the Committee
highlighted the absence of training arrangements under the proposed "Work
for the Dole"Work for the Dole scheme. The Brotherhood of St Laurence,
for example, stated:
A quality training program should be provided in areas of employment
growth so as to link it to real improvements in job prospects. [117].
The Salvation Army, drawing upon its extensive experience working with
the long-term unemployed, insisted that:
Training needs to be accredited, of good quality and linked to
industry needs if it is to ensure a transition to real work. [118].
The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) argued that:
Iit is puzzling why the government is seeking to implement a
scheme that does not guarantee participants access to training. The
lack of training in the work-for-the-dole proposal again sits oddly
with the broad public policy, supported by governments of all persuasion
to get the best value for the public dollar. [119].
The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission (ACSWC) pointed out
that:
Any kind of make-work scheme which does not provide active employment
support and training holds a very limited capacity to generate real
jobs in an economy... Work for the Dole will do nothing to enhance the
skills base of regionally depressed labour markets if not supplemented
by substantial active employment assistance and accredited competency
based training. [120].
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), in evidence to the Committee,
drew attention to the most successful labour market program of recent
years - traineeships. These have grown from around 16, 000 two years ago
to nearly 50, 000 now, through the co-operative efforts of gGovernments,
employers and unions. However, their rate of growth is slowing and their
future is now at risk because of changes in the policies of the Coalition
is gGovernment. [121]. The ACTU also
stated:
Any proposal to assist the long-term unemployed get back into
the workforce should include a significant element of skill development
through structured training alongside of work experience. [122].
The UNIYA Jesuit Social Centre - whose Board members include Father Frank
Brennan and Professor Bettina Cass - “propose an extensive modification
to the program so that factors which are instrumental in creating and
maintaining employment may be incorporated into the program”. [123].
In particular, UNIYA it urges that:
an essential feature of any program for long-term unemployed
young people should include accredited training and/or literacy courses...
The inclusion of accredited training would eliminate... wastefulness
of time, energy and effort... It would also ensure logical progression
for individuals in their pathway back into employment. [124].
Concern was also raised about the potential of the scheme to divert resources
away from investment in genuine and recognised training. As ACOSS stated:
The current climate of high unemployment and fiscal constraints
surely requires all public expenditure in this area to be directed first
and foremost, at programs and schemes which lead jobseekers into jobs
and do so on a cost effective basis. [125].
DEETYA acknowledged that work experience and training are very important
for getting people back into full-time or sustainable jobs;, however it
was argued that training per se is not an integral element or a
primary objective of the “Work for the Dole” Scheme.
This view is reiterated in the Chairman's Report which states that "the
Work for Dole scheme is not intended as a training or labour market program.”
[126] The Report also states that many
skills enabling unemployed people to compete more effectively in the labour
market can be obtained without participation through existing schemes.
[127].
However, we do not accept the argument in the Chairman's Report that
because not all training programs in the past have led to the securing
of real jobs that therefore no training at all should be included in this
scheme. As Anglicare stated in response to DEETYA - if lack of skills
is one of the key reasons for their unemployment, then links to training
are one of the first requirements to meet the needs of young people.
In line with the many well-founded concerns emphasising the importance
of training as providing a pathway to a real job, we recommend amendments
which require the Employment Secretary to only approve programs if they
provide participants with accredited on or off the job skills training.
Need for case management and supervision
It was also clear in the evidence from community organisations experienced
in the delivery of current and former labour market programs to Australia's
unemployed, that the arrangements envisaged under this scheme are inferior
to previous labour market programs.
As pointed out by the Belconnen Unemployed Youth Taskforce, “sSome
people are under the apparently false impression that this scheme will
be the equivalent of a labour market program.” [128].
The Brotherhood of St. Laurence stated:
the Government's '“work for the dole' work for the dole”
initiative... is not likely to promote enduring employment outcomes
for unemployed people for the following reasons.
The ' “work-for -the dole'” program does
not... :
necessarily involve an assessment of individual needs and the
development of a comprehensive return-to-work plan. [129].
We consider that participants in the programs established by the Bill
must be given the case management and supervision they require to assist
them in making decisions about opportunities relevant to the program.
We recommend amendments to the Bill to make this requirement explicit.
We also recommend amendments which will ensure that participants in the
program can leave the program in order to accept education, training or
employment opportunities.
And we recommend that participants should be able to participate in the
amended scheme, for a minimum of six months, so as to gain real benefits.
Need for additional financial support for on-costs and other aspects
While the Commonwealth Department of Social Security stated that the
majority of expenses for "Work for the Dole"Work For the Dole
will be “one-off expenses” [130]
, indications are that the governmentGovernment may have significantly
under-estimated the on-costs of its proposed projects.
The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), in its written submission
to the Committee, emphasised that for local Councils to participate in
the proposed scheme “the program must cover full costs of employment
of the participants plus administration”. [131].
ACOSS pointed out that the costs of supervision may be further increased
given the non-compliant state of mind of participants if compulsion is
present. [132].
Amendments are required in the Bill to spell out the responsibility of
the Commonwealth to provide adequate financial assistance to those persons
responsible for conducting the programs to meet the costs of supervision,
materials, workers compensation, superannuation and safety-related measures
including protective clothing, and other unavoidable employment-related
costs such as transport and child carechildcare.
Compulsion to work for unemployment payments is not justified in the
absence of proper labour market program arrangements
The evidence presented to the Committee by numerous community organisations
who work closely with unemployed people, and have particular experience
with the long-term and most disadvantaged of the unemployed, was almost
entirely against placing compulsion on the unemployed to work in exchange
for unemployment payments - as distinct from in properly structured training
programs.
One of the reasons is that this would threaten genuine, existing voluntary
activity. [133].
Another serious concern is that compulsion would place additional social
pressure on some of our most vulnerable young people, who already suffer
low levels of self-esteem. The Brotherhood of St Laurence expressed the
view that:
it is unlikely to contribute a great deal to either the wellbeing
or the job prospects of the young people involved and is likely to increase
their alienation, not their participation. [134].
The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission stated that only voluntary
work undertaken “freely and willingly “ would have some merit
in alleviating the impact of unemployment experienced by long-term and
disadvantaged jobseekers.
The Salvation Army and the Sydney City Mission in their submissions [135]
firmly stated that from their experience compulsory "Work for the
Dole"work for the dole would not produce positive outcomes nor improve
the motivation of long-term unemployed people.
This contradicts the unfounded assertion by DEETYA that the compulsory
nature of the governmentGovernment's present Bill will assist people who
have a severe lack of motivation. [136].
The Salvation Army stated that:
We do not believe that forcing people to accept unsuitable options
has any benefit to the individual, the project activity or indeed any
other participants on the same programme. Our experience has shown that
it is preferable to promote the positive aspect of participation rather
than simply compel people to attend. [137].
The inclusion of compulsion was also criticised as discriminatory. As
the Australian Young Christian Workers Movement said, “the participants
are not being treated like any other group of people in Australian society.”
[138].
The so-called "compulsion" envisaged in the governmentGovernment's
present scheme is selective and discriminatory given that there are only
10, 000 places proposed under the scheme. This proportion represents only
a fraction of the total number of unemployed people in the 18 to -24 years
age group, and an even smaller proportion of the total number of unemployed
persons in Australia.
It is also likely that unemployed people in more affluent areas will
be exempt from "Work for the Dole"Work for the Dole.
Contrary to DEETYA's assertions, many groups also pointed out that people
compelled to "Work for the Dole"work for the dole" would
not in fact become more "employable"." If compelled to
work, prospective employers would not view "Work for the Dole"Work
for the Dole participants as having entered into the projects at their
own initiative and choice.
Concerns were also raised about the restrictive nature of the scheme.
The UNIYJA Jesuit Social Centre stated that “Compulsory participation
in such programs excludes unemployed people from full participation in
employment assistance schemes and training courses”. [139].
The Department's claims that the scheme will improve young people's work
ethic was also undermined by its failure in Committee hearings to produce
any research to support the view that young people do not currently subscribe
to the work ethic.
In fact, the best, most comprehensive research available, conducted by
organisations such as the Australian Science and Technology Council and
the Commission for the Future, indicates that young people overwhelmingly
do subscribe to the work ethic, and the problem is that there are
not jobs for them.
DEETYA's assertion that compulsion "recognises the investment by...
taxpayers" in provision of unemployment payments also ignores the
fact that the vast majority of unemployed people have themselves paid
taxes which go towards funding unemployment payments, and have therefore
already "worked for the dole".
The Bill provides very new, wide-ranging and far-reaching powers for
compulsion. If the governmentGovernment does only intend to create 10 000
places and these are largely to be filled on a voluntary basis, then no
case has been made for the inclusion of such powers of powers for compulsion
which are set out in this Bill.
We therefore support the views put forward forwarded by the community
groups with their extensive first-hand experience of working with the
unemployed, rather than the assertions made by DEETYA about the effects
of compulsory ""Work for the Dole"work for the dole".
Accordingly we recommend deleting the provisions of the Bill which allow
the Secretary to give the power to compel unemployed people to work in
exchange for unemployment payments without the option of proper labour
market or training programs.
Need to treat participants as employees
The Pproposed Section 631C of the Bill seeks to amend the Social Security
Act 1991 so that participation in “Work for the Dole” projects
would not give rise to an employer/employee relationship for the purposes
of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Commonwealth Employees)
Act 1991, the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988,
the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 and the
Workplace Relations Act 1996.
Major concerns were raised in evidence to the Committee about whether
these amendments will in fact remove the employer/employee relationship
at common law and whether the Commonwealth can in fact single-handedly
legislate to remove an employer/employee relationship. [140].
Authoritative legal advice referred to in detail in evidence to the Committee
indicates otherwise. [141] And the
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs in its
subsequent written submission concedes that:
The Government intends to seek the States/Territories' support
to amend State/Territory legislation to ensure consistency with the
proposed Commonwealth legislation”. [142].
The Chairman's Report admits that "It is... crucial that the States
and Territories support the Commonwealth's approach to amend their legislation".
If such amendments are not forthcoming or are delayed, there is the strong
likelihood that there will be common law claims on workers' compensation
and occupational health and safety matters. As outlined by the Youth Action
Policy Association of NSW (YAPA):
There is a serious lack of detail in relation to the conditions
under which young people will be working, the occupational health and
safety conditions they will be subjected to, the accessibility of compensation
if they are injured and the issues surrounding what amounts to `civil
conscription' of the unemployed. [143].
What the Chairman's Report describes as "very firm commitments in
relation to the protection of participants in the pilot projects"
are in fact very weak in comparison to the legal protections given
to other workers in Australia.
Given the disturbing possibilities of legal delays and liabilities, and
the fact that participants in the programs established by the Bill should,
as a matter of fairness and equity, have access to the same superannuation
entitlements, workers' compensation, occupational health and safety and
industrial relations protections as other workers in Australia, we recommend
that proposed Section 631C of the Bill should be deleted.
As expressed by the National Anglican Caring Organisations Network:
The community has an obligation to protect a participant in community
work in respect of normal measures such as compensation against injury,
health and safety protection and industrial rights ege.g. fair hours.
[144].
Need for unemployed persons to have proper rights of appeal
Schedule 1, Items 15, 16 and 17 of the Bill seeks to provide that decisions
to approve a program of work for unemployment payment are not subject
to internal review and are not decisions that can be reviewed by the Social
Security Appeals Tribunal.
As pointed out by a number of community organisations, these are unreasonable
and we recommend that they be removed from the Bill.
Proper evaluation of "Work for the Dole"
The proposed method for evaluation of the scheme proposed in the DEETYA
submission and endorsed in the Chairman's Report is vague and lacking
in detail. We support the alternative recommendation by the Welfare Rights
Centre that the "scheme should be subject to a rigorous, independent
evaluation against a control group before introduced more widely"
[145].
We endorse the detailed approach to evaluation by a Steering Committee
proposed by ACOSS. [146].
We further recommend establishing an agreed set of outcome indicators
by which the success or otherwise of the scheme might be measured. The
Employment Secretary should be required to have regard to the success
of the programs established by the Bill in terms of participants' success
in gaining employment, traineeships, apprenticeships, educational opportunities
or other labour market programs.
A time frame for evaluation of the scheme should also be set, to begin
not later than nine months after the commencement of the pilot projects,
and to be completed not less than twelve months after that commencement.
In addition to the above recommended changes to the Social Security
Legislation Amendment (Work for the Dole) Bill 1997 we also
submit the need for a `sunset' clause.
The objective of the above recommended changes is to actually attempt
to take positive steps - including through the incorporation of proper
labour market program arrangements - to address Australia's high and rising
rate of youth unemployment, which as DEETYA openly acknowledges in its
submission, is not an aim of the present Bill. [147].
| Senator Chris Evans
(ALP, Western Australia)
|
Senator John Faulkner
(ALP, New South Wales)
|
| Senator Sue Mackay
(ALP, Tasmania)
|
Senator Belinda Neal
(ALP, New South Wales)
|
| Senator Kerry O'Brien
(ALP, Tasmania)
|
Senator Sue West
(ALP, New South Wales)
|
Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page
FOOTNOTES:
[105] Chairman's Report, p 4.
[106] Submission by Moreland City Council
[107] Quoted in the Australian Catholic Social
Welfare Commission submission, p 13.
[108] AYPAC submission, pp 7-8. [108]
Submission by Migrant Employment Taskforce. [108]
See for example the testimony of Ms Anna Cirocco, National Secretary,
Australian Young Christian Workers Movement, Transcript of Evidence, 28
April 1997, p 217.
[109] Submission by Migrant Employment Taskforce.
[110] See for example, the testimony of Ms
Anna Cirocco, National Secretary, Australian Young Christian Workers Movement,
Transcript of evidence, 28 April 1997, p 217.
[111] DEETYA submission, pp 6, 8.
[112] Chairman's report p 18.
[113] Chairman's Draft p 19.
[114] Chairman's Report p 19.
[115] Migrant Employment Taskforce submission,
p 11.
[116] For example, the Migrant Employment
Taskforce submission, pp 8-12.
[117] Submission by Brotherhood of St Laurence.
[118] Salvation Army submission, p 4.
[119] ACOSS submission, p 17.
[120] Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission
submission, p 16.
[121] Transcript of evidence, 28 April 1997,
p 211.
[122] ACTU submission, p 1.
[123] UNIYA submission, pp 1-2.
[124] UNIYA submission, p 3.
[125] ACOSS submission, p 11.
[126] Chairman's Report.
[127] Chairman's Report p 14.
[128] Submission by Belconnen Unemployed Youth
Taskforce.
[129] Submission by Brotherhood of St. Laurence
p 2.
[130] Submission by Commonwealth Department
of Social Security.
[131] Australian Local Government Association
submission, p 2.
[132] ACOSS submission, p 21.
[133] See the submission from the Belconnen
Unemployed Youth Taskforce.
[134] Submission by Brotherhood of St Laurence.
[135] pp 2-3 and p 3.
[136] See DEETYA submission, p 6.
[137] Submission by the Salvation Army, p
2
[138] Australian Young Christian Workers Movement,
p 6.
[139] Submission by UNIYAUNIYJA Jesuit Social
Centre.
[140] Transcript of evidence, 18 April 1997,
pp 152-156.
[141] Transcript of evidence, 18 April 1997,
p 152.
[142] DEETYA submission, p 7.
[143] Youth Action Policy Association (YAPA)
submission.
[144] Submission by National Anglican Caring
Organisations Network, p 4.
[145] Welfare Rights Centre submission, p
10.
[146] ACOSS submission, pp 20-21.
[147] DEETYA submission, p 5.