Extract from The Guardian
Job agencies and welfare groups voice concerns that positive elements of Coalition's plans are outweighed by harmful aspects
- Lenore Taylor, political editor
- theguardian.com,
The Abbott government’s tougher requirements on job seekers are
likely to backfire, harming rather than helping their chances of finding
work, job agencies and welfare groups have said.
Asked to assess the likely net impact of the policies unveiled to date by the Coalition against their goal – more people finding work – experts said some measures could help but the net effect would probably be negative.
The Coalition has unveiled new draft contracts for job search agencies, requiring 40 job applications a month on top of 15 to 25 hours’ a week “work for the dole” for some unemployed people, dole payments for only six out of twelve months for job seekers under 30, tough compulsory periods of non-payment for those who refuse a job or fail to meet requirements and a new system of employer subsidies.
Immediate attention has focused on the requirement for 40 job applications a month. Business groups have warned they will be swamped with pointless job applications and the employment minister, Eric Abetz, said he was listening to business concerns because “we as a government do not want box-ticking to take place. We don't want red tape and inconvenience to employers.”
But a previous government study concluded the policy might also not help the unemployed find a job.
An evaluation in November 2007 of Howard government policies by the then department of education, employment and workplace relations warned that increasing of job application requirements “does not appear to have translated into increased employment outcomes”.
It said more study was needed but “there is a danger that requiring a minimum number of job applications may encourage job seekers to apply for positions for which they are not qualified, particularly in areas with limited employment opportunities or when the job seeker has specialist skills. There is scope for job seekers who have limited motivation to find work, to meet their activity test requirements by deliberately applying for inappropriate positions or submitting poor-quality applications. The survey findings suggest that increasing mandatory job applications must also be accompanied with steps to maintain the quality of job search.”
Asked to assess the overall impact of the government’s policies, David Thompson, the head of Jobs Australia which represents non-profit job search agencies, said: “Some of the flexibilities for job agencies in the new contracts might help but when you add the other measures the overall impact on the aim of getting more people in to work will not be good.”
He said tough compliance requirements could not get around the fact that there were 10 unemployed or underemployed job seekers for every vacancy, and the idea of denying payments to under-30s for six out of every 12 months “will have an unspeakable impact on people”.
Peter Davidson, a senior adviser at the Australian Council of Social Service, said he could “see nothing [in the government’s policies] that will make a difference except perhaps the expanded wage subsidies for employers”.
“Work for the dole has been proven not to be effective because the work is too far removed from a regular job, and is usually just a make-work scheme, and the denial of benefits will drive younger people further out of the labour market.”
“I think overall these policies will hinder efforts to get people into employment because there will be fewer resources available to help people overcome the barriers to getting a job,” he said.
Lin Hatfield Dodds, national director of UnitingCare Australia, said it was “hard to see how these policies overall will support people into work”.
“Subsidies and incentive payments that reduce the risk perceived by potential employers can help … but it is particularly hard to see how not getting any payment for six months will do anything but move people further away from getting a job.”
“Our staff at the coal face are really, really worried about what will happen to young people who feel abandoned by the whole community.”
The proposals received a warm reception from conservative radio announcers such as Alan Jones, who introduced an interview with Abetz on Tuesday by saying the policy was “not a radical extension of mutual obligation. It’s simply saying that if you are going to take someone else’s money, you most probably should expect to have to do something for it. Taxpayers’ money is money that taxpayers earn. As the people listening to me have to do this. We broadcast to shop owners, not shoplifters. This is taxpayers’ money.”
Abetz clarified that the work-for-the-dole requirements would initially apply to the approximately 150,000 unemployed people who were considered “job ready” and not those with parenting and caring responsibilities.
In an interview with Lateline on Monday, Abetz defended the requirement for 40 job applications a month on the grounds that “when jobs are sparse, it means that you've got to apply for more jobs to get a job. And so just because the circumstances are difficult, doesn't mean that our fellow Australians should ease off from the job search.”
Abetz also said he had “seen all sorts of studies in relation to work for the dole. What I would simply say is that the evidence that I have seen, the anecdotal evidence of people, who, especially in the Howard era, when I launched countless work-for-the-dole programs.”
He was responding to a question about a study by the Melbourne University professor Jeff Borland, reported by Guardian Australia, which found work for the dole could cause people to spend longer on the dole.
A study in 2006 comparing the effectiveness of unemployment policies found work for the dole was less effective than job-search training, customised assistance and “mutual obligation”.
Abetz said the government was motivated by the knowledge that “by keeping people in welfare we do them a great personal disservice, besides asking their fellow Australians to dig even deeper in their pockets to maintain them in a lifestyle that we know from all the evidence causes damage to the individual and the family unit of which they’re a member, if they remain on welfare. So it is overwhelmingly good for the individual, for society and the economy that we encourage them out of welfare as quickly as possible.”
The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said the 40-applications rule might make sense “in Abbott land where mum and dad are printing out your resumé on the finest word processors” but it did not make sense in the real world.
Asked to assess the likely net impact of the policies unveiled to date by the Coalition against their goal – more people finding work – experts said some measures could help but the net effect would probably be negative.
The Coalition has unveiled new draft contracts for job search agencies, requiring 40 job applications a month on top of 15 to 25 hours’ a week “work for the dole” for some unemployed people, dole payments for only six out of twelve months for job seekers under 30, tough compulsory periods of non-payment for those who refuse a job or fail to meet requirements and a new system of employer subsidies.
Immediate attention has focused on the requirement for 40 job applications a month. Business groups have warned they will be swamped with pointless job applications and the employment minister, Eric Abetz, said he was listening to business concerns because “we as a government do not want box-ticking to take place. We don't want red tape and inconvenience to employers.”
But a previous government study concluded the policy might also not help the unemployed find a job.
An evaluation in November 2007 of Howard government policies by the then department of education, employment and workplace relations warned that increasing of job application requirements “does not appear to have translated into increased employment outcomes”.
It said more study was needed but “there is a danger that requiring a minimum number of job applications may encourage job seekers to apply for positions for which they are not qualified, particularly in areas with limited employment opportunities or when the job seeker has specialist skills. There is scope for job seekers who have limited motivation to find work, to meet their activity test requirements by deliberately applying for inappropriate positions or submitting poor-quality applications. The survey findings suggest that increasing mandatory job applications must also be accompanied with steps to maintain the quality of job search.”
Asked to assess the overall impact of the government’s policies, David Thompson, the head of Jobs Australia which represents non-profit job search agencies, said: “Some of the flexibilities for job agencies in the new contracts might help but when you add the other measures the overall impact on the aim of getting more people in to work will not be good.”
He said tough compliance requirements could not get around the fact that there were 10 unemployed or underemployed job seekers for every vacancy, and the idea of denying payments to under-30s for six out of every 12 months “will have an unspeakable impact on people”.
Peter Davidson, a senior adviser at the Australian Council of Social Service, said he could “see nothing [in the government’s policies] that will make a difference except perhaps the expanded wage subsidies for employers”.
“Work for the dole has been proven not to be effective because the work is too far removed from a regular job, and is usually just a make-work scheme, and the denial of benefits will drive younger people further out of the labour market.”
“I think overall these policies will hinder efforts to get people into employment because there will be fewer resources available to help people overcome the barriers to getting a job,” he said.
Lin Hatfield Dodds, national director of UnitingCare Australia, said it was “hard to see how these policies overall will support people into work”.
“Subsidies and incentive payments that reduce the risk perceived by potential employers can help … but it is particularly hard to see how not getting any payment for six months will do anything but move people further away from getting a job.”
“Our staff at the coal face are really, really worried about what will happen to young people who feel abandoned by the whole community.”
The proposals received a warm reception from conservative radio announcers such as Alan Jones, who introduced an interview with Abetz on Tuesday by saying the policy was “not a radical extension of mutual obligation. It’s simply saying that if you are going to take someone else’s money, you most probably should expect to have to do something for it. Taxpayers’ money is money that taxpayers earn. As the people listening to me have to do this. We broadcast to shop owners, not shoplifters. This is taxpayers’ money.”
Abetz clarified that the work-for-the-dole requirements would initially apply to the approximately 150,000 unemployed people who were considered “job ready” and not those with parenting and caring responsibilities.
In an interview with Lateline on Monday, Abetz defended the requirement for 40 job applications a month on the grounds that “when jobs are sparse, it means that you've got to apply for more jobs to get a job. And so just because the circumstances are difficult, doesn't mean that our fellow Australians should ease off from the job search.”
Abetz also said he had “seen all sorts of studies in relation to work for the dole. What I would simply say is that the evidence that I have seen, the anecdotal evidence of people, who, especially in the Howard era, when I launched countless work-for-the-dole programs.”
He was responding to a question about a study by the Melbourne University professor Jeff Borland, reported by Guardian Australia, which found work for the dole could cause people to spend longer on the dole.
A study in 2006 comparing the effectiveness of unemployment policies found work for the dole was less effective than job-search training, customised assistance and “mutual obligation”.
Abetz said the government was motivated by the knowledge that “by keeping people in welfare we do them a great personal disservice, besides asking their fellow Australians to dig even deeper in their pockets to maintain them in a lifestyle that we know from all the evidence causes damage to the individual and the family unit of which they’re a member, if they remain on welfare. So it is overwhelmingly good for the individual, for society and the economy that we encourage them out of welfare as quickly as possible.”
The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said the 40-applications rule might make sense “in Abbott land where mum and dad are printing out your resumé on the finest word processors” but it did not make sense in the real world.
No comments:
Post a Comment