The federal police and a private security operator were there before dawn a few weeks ago. They had the house under surveillance. They were not looking for drug importers, a terrorist cell, a p-edophile network — they were spying on people receiving unemployment benefits.
There were men and women sharing the same house yet they were all on the single persons dole which, though $50 per week less than the age pension, is more than the dole for couple. There was nothing in it — they just all shared the house to keep the rent cost low and sacrificed their privacy as thousands of others do.
Over the last decade or more the federal government has been increasingly mean and penny pinching toward the unemployed — blaming them for their plight while sending tens of thousands of jobs offshore and running down the very infrastructure they need — public transport and public housing. Politicians call the unemployed “bludgers” without rebuke and, in an eerie parallel to management of ‘Aboriginal Affairs’ a massive industry has formed around these ‘inconvenient statistics’.
The dole is only available for three months, the recipients up to the age of 55 have to sign up for work for the dole — from painting rocks white to weeding native vegetation and similar jobs. There is a very small additional allowance that often does not cover transport to get to work, let alone the cost of a car.
Every unemployed person must first be signed up with a workplace provider. There is mock competition between these providers but they are all very much the same. They get some thousands of dollars for getting the unemployed jobs — but now that is just churning — in many regions there are simply not enough jobs to go around and it is getting worse. Work for the dole creates the statistical illusion that they are actually working — but at a very high price to the tax payer.
There will be no bonuses paid directly to those on the dole, unlike pensioners, carers and the disabled. According to Barry Cassidy of the ABC Insiders this is because unemployed people are “on and off the dole.” This sounds more like regurgitated spin rather than researched fact — especially since the National Australia Bank is warning of an additional 200,000 unemployed.
The penalties for unemployed people breaching their numerous and complicated obligations are severe. They lose half of their tiny income or the entire amount for months they can be easily breached. The rent does not stop — nor the need to eat. With families in the mess often associated with losing work it is not hard to get into trouble with Centrelink — and even harder to pay rent and keep the car going.
Young feisty broke teenagers get less than everyone else — but they get no discounts on the basics. They are also more likely to have difficulties reading and writing, be homeless or have problems with accommodation — little patience for bureaucracy and more likely to “breach”.
Without income they prowl the streets looking for an easy earn. A car door left open, maybe a window in an house — a bit of begging. They cannot afford cars and resent those that do and often steal them to get home rather than walking late at night.
Centrelink could pay their rent, as is done in England and their income must be, as their costs, the same as that for pensioners, the disabled and single mothers (still tortured by the impractical requirement to get 14 hours work per week). The funds used for workplace providers can be converted to the creation of real jobs to give real experience and real income.
As even the unlamented Count Yorga said, when he steered it through Parliament, “work for the dole is not about training but about mutual obligation…” Not obligation to create a fair society but to maintain the obligation of the poor to be misrable. Surfing dole bludgers or those who spent too long in libraries becoming socially aware were no less poor after the enforced non-jobs (often , as Elmore states, out of pocket in having to attend).
No more of that under Krudd….
I understand what you mean, Maree, and agree, but the word “discriminating” is not what you want.
* showing or indicating careful judgment and discernment especially in matters of taste; “the discriminating eye of the connoisseur”
* acute: having or demonstrating ability to recognize or draw fine distinctions; “an acute observer of politics and politicians”; “incisive comments”; “icy knifelike reasoning”; “as sharp and incisive as the stroke of a fang”; “penetrating insight”; “frequent penetrative observations”
I agree with Lionel Elmore. I find it strange that we treat the unemployed the way we do. I know there are some unemployed who work the system. But, I think the vast majority just want to have a paid job and be treated as an equal.
I think the biggest mistake the government made was when the Centrelink Job Centres were handed over to private enterprise. I agree the huge payments given to these agencies could have gone to help the unemployed such as re-education programmes, travel to and from job interviews.
The government should never have allowed business to bring unskilled labour into this country. If a job cannot be found for them, then the taxpayers should fund their rent and they should receive the same pension as the age pensioners.
During this period of financial crises all migration should be stopped whilst we help the present and the expceted future unemployed, until this crises is over.
Why are we allowed to use the term “dole bludger” when describing the unemployed, I find the word totally discriminating.
Tomorrow my darling younger daughter turns eight years old. Normally that would be a cause for celebration and of course it is, but my household budget will be in mourning. Unfortunately I am in the unenviable position of being a single parent after my 18 year marriage failed last year. Applying for a single parenting payment, I was advised that in order to be eligible for it I would need to work a minimum of 15 hours per week. I was happy to oblige and found a job working 24 hours per week, more than strictly necessary according to the guidelines and despite the fact that with every extra hour I work, I lose proportionate income in my parenting payment. Not much incentive but I enjoy working and feel it contributes positively to my life. However as of tomorrow I am no longer considered a single parent as such, but am required to reapply for the Newstart Allowance (read: dole). Apart from receiving approximately $70 less per fortnight, I also have lost my right to a discounted electricity bill, pharmaceutical discounts, and discounted public transport. To top it off, despite the fact that I have stable employment, I have to register with a job agency; and I can no longer declare my earnings online but have to undergo the humiliation of lodging my form in person every fortnight at a Centrelink office. Does the fact that now my daughter is a year older mean that she will cost me less in food, clothing, school books, uniforms and fees, shoes and other necessities of life? I would think that the opposite would be true, she actually eats more as she gets bigger. As I understand it, this legislation was introduced under the Howard government. What a surprise! This would be the same draconian department that spent thousands chasing poor individuals for repayment of Centrelink debts, despite the fact that it was often the fault of the department for overpayment in the first place. Think very hard about having kids ladies….
I too am amazed at the government’s punitive attitude towards the unemployed. As Maree notes, there are always people who will work the system – but what the people at the top of the financial tree, who send their company earnings offshore so they don’t have to pay taxes to support services they use more than their fair share of?. What about the people who stay in their crappy underpaid jobs and putup with routine sexual harassment and workplace bullying so they don’t have to deal with Centrelink? What about the people with a lousy education, a menatl illness or a disability that disadvantages them when looking for work? What about the long held economic “received wisdom” that uses the pool of unemployed people to exert downward pressure on inflation?? If, as a government, you create an underclass who cannot afford to live, you increase the costs of security and safety for all those employed and law abiding citizens (or the elderly or very young) who then become targets for desperate and hungry people. Blaming the victim has a long history in this country – and others. This doesn’t make it either moral or sensible.